Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

Mr. FENBY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in making his reply to the petition in favour of the acceptance of the optional Clause of the permanent Court, organised by the League of Nations Union and the National Council for the Prevention of War, in which he stated that the question of accepting the Clause had been decided against by every British Government since the Court was founded, he had in mind the decision of the Labour Government, announced by the then Prime Minister at Geneva in September, 1924, that it was their desire to sign the Clause; and whether, in view of this, he wishes to revise his reply?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): On looking up the passage in the speech to which I assume that the hon. Member is referring, I find that it contained the qualification that it would be proper that the Clause, before it were accepted by His Majesty's Government, should be amended in the sense of being made more precise. I cannot, therefore, accept the view that the words used constituted an announcement of a decision by the late Government of their desire to sign the optional Clause as it then stood, and still stands.

Mr. FENBY: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) rather detracting from the specific statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary that every British
Government had decided against this and showing that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman needed some qualification?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (MRS. CHIPPENDALE'S DEPORTATION).

Captain FAIRFAX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Mrs. Selina Chippendale, of Bridlington, was removed from a hotel in Boston, where she was working, taken to the immigration station by the authorities, and that her health suffered during her stay of seven months owing to lack of privacy, to vermin, bad food, and bad accommodation; and if he will cause full inquiry to be made?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The only information which I have received with regard to this case was furnished by the United States Government with a view to Mrs. Chippendale's deportation, but I have called for a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (TREATMENT OF BRITISH TRAVELLER)

Colonel DAY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that Mr. R. R. Stokes, of Cambridge, was assaulted by Fascisti at Genoa during a recent visit, he will state what action is being taken by the British Consul at Genoa to afford protection to British visitors?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) on the 8th instant, to which I have nothing to add.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say what action is being taken by the British Consul at Genoa to afford protection to British residents?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman state what action was taken with regard to the murders of British subjects in Russia?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) was not, I think, in the House when I gave the answer the
other day. A full apology has been given for the assault, and regret has been expressed by the Commandant at Genoa, and I understand that Mr. Stokes is satisfied.

Colonel DAY: I was in the House, and the answer given was that the Commandant had instructed the officers to apologise. What I would like to know is if that apology has been given, and as the answer was that steps would be taken, I want to know if steps have been taken, and what they are.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What I answered the other day was that the Commandant added that the culprits had been punished and that steps would be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUNISIA (ARREST OF LIEUTENANT MACNAMARA).

Captain FAIRFAX: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report of the circumstances in which Lieutenant Macnamara was arrested at Sousse, in Tunisia, and imprisoned for 15 days among Arab criminals; and if he will ascertain whether this officer has been released and, if he be still awaiting trial, if he will ensure that he receives assistance in his defence and treatment proper to a British subject?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Full reports in regard to the imprisonment of Mr. Macnamara have been received from His Majesty's Consul-General at Tunis, who has made repeated and vigorous representations to the local authorities against the treatment accorded to the accused. Mr. Macnamara is now on bail, and counsel has been engaged for his defence. His Majesty's Consul-General is carefully watching the case and will continue to give the accused every possible assistance and advice.

Captain FAIRFAX: In the event of this officer having been wrongfully imprisoned, will the British Consul assist him to recover damages?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think we must wait till the evidence has been heard.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: Is not this a case in which we might make representations to Paris?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As a matter of fact, representations have been made to Paris.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Consul-General sending any report on the allegations of extraordinary treatment suffered by Lieut. Macnamara in the gaol and at the hands of the judge of first instance?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes; we have had full reports of this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION.

Captain EDEN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any countries have representation at Angora; and, if so, which?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir; and if, as I assume, my hon. and gallant Friend alludes to permanent residence at Angora, the answer to the second part of the question is Russia, Poland, Greece and Afghanistan.

Captain EDEN: 6.
also asked what reasons, other than the lack of a suitable building, are operative against the permanent establishment of a British representative at Angora?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir; I should prefer not to make any statement at the present moment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of his statement that suitable accommodation is not available for a British Ambassador at Angora, he is considering reducing the status of His Majesty's Representative in Turkey?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer is in the negative.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the land which contained the British Summer Embassy at Therapia is British territory; and to what use it is now being put?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The site at Therapia on which the British Summer Embassy formerly stood belongs to His Majesty's Government, and is subject to the privileges usually enjoyed by diplomatic property. A small house and certain out-buildings which still exist on the site are used as an occasional place of residence by members of the Embassy staff.

SPAIN (BRITISH COAL).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a decree has just been issued by the Government of Spain organising the sale and use of coal in that country; that this decree will have the effect of limiting the importation of coal, with the consequential effect of reducing the amount of British coal exported into Spain; and whether, in view of the favourable conditions which Spanish fruit traders enjoy in this country, he can see his way to make representations to the Spanish authorities on the matter?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The new Spanish decree is engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government, who propose to renew their representations at Madrid.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman pay special attention to the suggestion I make at the end of my question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is what the answer is. That is what we are doing.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then that is all right. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. PALING: Can the hon. Gentleman say in what way this new decree will stop the importation of British coal?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not this really following up the policy of hon. and right hon. Members opposite—Protection?

BULGARIA (REFUGEES)

Mr. RILEY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received by His
Majesty's Government or by the League of Nations from the Bulgarian Government with a view to obtain a loan to deal with the refugee problem in Bulgaria?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Bulgarian Minister discussed the question of a refugee loan with my right hon. Friend on the 25th February last.

Mr. RILEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether sympathetic consideration is being given to the application?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: All that I should like to say now is that certainly no difficulties will be placed in the way of the loan so long as the security for that loan is approved by the Reparation Commission.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the change of Government in Bulgaria means a change in the treatment of the persecuted minority in Bulgaria?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ENGLISH-GROWN WHEAT.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in placing contracts for the supply of bread and flour, he will insert a clause that will ensure a proportion of English-grown wheat being used?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): One of the principal factors which experience has shown to be essential to enable His Majesty's ships to carry the necessary stocks of flour with the least risk of loss is the moisture content, and from its nature English-grown wheat can only form a very small percentage of the variety of wheats used by millers to produce flour of the type required. In the case of bread, the Admiralty follows the established policy of purchasing to general trade standard, and, in this connection, it is not considered desirable to introduce any stipulation as to the wheat from which flour is produced.

Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how Englishmen lived before we imported wheat into this country

Mr. BLUNDELL: Will the Admiralty consider using only British flour for biscuits in the Navy, British flour being pre-eminently suitable for biscuit making?

Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider bringing wheat under the Merchandise Marks Bill?

Mr. RAMSDEN: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the percentage value of all foodstuffs, and of all other stores and materials of any kind purchased by his Department during the last financial year, and which were of foreign origin?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 19th November, 1925, to the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Major-General Sir F. Sykes) (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 590–1).

Loss OF SUBMARINE M1 (COMPENSATION CLAIM).

Mr. DALTON: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will reconsider the refusal of his Department to pay any compensation to Mrs. Ethel A. Duggan, of 53, Clifton Crescent, Asylum Road, Peckham, S.E.15, mother of the late Alfred F. H. Duggan, leading seaman O.N.J. 62,085, who was lost on board His Majesty's Submarine M1, having regard to the fact that Mrs. Duggan was in receipt of an allotment from her son, which has been discontinued by the Admiralty since his death, and that she was put to some expense, owing to the requirements of the Admiralty, in obtaining a copy of her son's birth certificate?

Mr. DAVIDSON: As the hon. Member has already been informed in a letter addressed to him by the First Lord on the 27th February, Mrs. Duggan is ineligible for an award from Naval Funds in respect of the death of her late son as the inquiries which have been made show that she is not in pecuniary need and that she was not largely dependent on the deceased at the time of his death. I regret that that decision cannot be varied. As regards the allotment, which was one of 2s. a week, payment ceased with stoppage of the late seaman's pay. The temporary continuance of qualifying allotments is allowable only in those cases where the allottee is in receipt of marriage allowance at the time of the allottor's Heath. I may add that authority has already been issued for payment of the naval assets to the father
and there is nothing further due in respect of pay.

Mr. DALTON: If the Admiralty should still be maintaining their refusal, may we take it that some steps will be taken to alter the Regulations under which these hardships arise for future cases?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I cannot give any promise.

DISCHARGED DOCKYARD EMPLOYES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether employés discharged from His Majesty's Dockyard are given any preference for employment in the out-stations of the British Empire?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, Sir; there is no increase in the numbers of men who can suitably and economically be employed in yards abroad, and if any men discharged at home are sent to fill vacancies abroad other men would have to be discharged at home in their place.

ARTIFICER APPRENTICES (BUTTONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the feeling among the relations of artificer apprentices that the recent alteration in the dress regulations of apprentices, namely, the wearing of black horn buttons instead of gold ones, is looked upon as a mark of degradation; and whether he will make a statement to relieve their anxiety?

Mr. DAVIDSON: On account of the introduction of a petty officer rate for the artificer and shipwright branches, it has been found necessary to bring the uniform of artificers and shipwrights passing into the Navy in future into line with that of corresponding ratings in other branches. This change has entailed the substitution of black horn for brass (not gilt) buttons in the case of artificer apprentices.

AIRCRAFT CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have turned their attention to a necessity that may arise in the near future of constructing aircraft in the Royal Dockyards; and whether the technical officials of the Admiralty have examined the problems involved?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative, but I understand that it is the present policy of the Air Ministry to rely upon the aircraft industry for construction.

REGULATING BRANCH RATINGS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent reductions in complements of regulating branch ratings and the performance of regulating duties by seaman chief and petty officers can also be extended to naval depots and all other naval shore establishments?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The question of the employment of regulating branch ratings in shore establishments will be considered during the present year, after receipt of Reports dealing with the matter.

OFFICERS INVALIDED.

Sir B. FALLE: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval officers were invalided during the year 1925; how many there were whose invaliding disability was considered to be attributable to service; and in how many cases was invaliding disability not considered to be attributable to service?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The number of officers (naval and marine) invalided during the year 1925 was 53. The number whose invaliding disability was considered to be attributable to the service was five. I have no information as to how many of the cases not considered attributable were subsequently accepted as attributable by the Ministry of Pensions.

RATINGS (PROMOTION TO MATE).

Sir B. FALLE: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how candidates for mate are selected; whether men are accepted as candidates on the recommendation of a superior officer without any action being taken by the ratings themselves; or whether ratings are allowed and encouraged to come forward as candidates and then their suitability for commissioned rank is considered?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The arrangements are that ratings of the branches eligible who have obtained a first class certificate in the higher educational test, and who have reached leading rate, or have fully
qualified for advancement to that rate, are encouraged to come forward as candidates, provided that they can be recommended by the captain of a seagoing ship and are able to pass the pre scribed seamanship examination. The names of candidates are first considered by port, fleet or squadron committees, by whom a preliminary selection is made. The names of those recommended by the commitees are then forwarded to the Admiralty where the final selection is made. The details of the arrangements will be found in Appendix X, Part IIA, of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions.

WELFARE CONFERENCE.

Mr. W. ROBINSON: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to issue any list of subjects that may or may not be considered by the Welfare Conference; and at what date is it proposed to convene the Welfare Conference to be held this year?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Welfare Conferences will be held as soon as possible after Easter leave.

VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

Mr. ROBINSON: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what institutions or correspondence colleges are supplying correspondence courses to men in the Navy as practical instruction in vocational training; what are the vocations being taught by correspondence; and whether the 25 per cent. of the fees payable from naval funds are paid to the men who take up the courses or direct to the institutions providing the courses?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The only correspondence courses of which the Admiralty has official knowledge are those of the International Correspondence Schools Limited, with which organisation special arrangements have been made with the primary object of assisting men serving afloat to fit themselves for the practical vocational instruction which is carried out at Fleet bases and the home ports. With regard to the second part of the question, I will send the hon. Member a copy of the Admiralty Fleet Order (2792/1925) which will give him full information. As regards the third part, the Admiralty contribution, together with the proportion paid by the
men on enrolment, is remitted through the Admiralty to the International Correspondence Schools Limited.

ADMIRALTY OFFICE VOTE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how the Admiralty Office Vote compares with that Vote before the War, and what efforts are being made for its reduction?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the published Navy Estimates for the two periods in question. The reasons for the increased staff at the Admiralty were given in detail in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett) on the 18th November last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 358–364]. The Departmental staffs are constantly under review and have been subjected to special examination recently, as a result of which the actual reduction which will be brought about by the 1st April next amounts to over 100.

HOURS OF LABOUR.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state the numbers of workers in this country who and the numbers working more than 48 hours; and if he will give the names of the industries, apart from the continuous processes, where the normal working week exceeds 48 hours?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am not yet able to give the figures asked for by my Noble Friend, but from a sample tabulation of returns recently received from employers in most of the important industries (excluding agriculture, the retail distributive trades, the railway service and dock labour) it would appear that about 90 per cent. of the workpeople work a normal week of 48 hours or less. In each of the main industrial groups a varying, but usually small, proportion of workpeople not engaged on continuous processes is returned as working a normal week of over 48 hours.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does that include the catering trade?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think not. That, I think, is included among the retail distributive trades.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXTENDED BENEFIT, MIDDLESBROUGH AND STEPNEY.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for extended benefit have been made at the Middlesbrough Employment Exchange since the 1st October, 1925; the number of such claims that have been refused; the number that have been granted; and the number under consideration at the latest convenient date?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the period 13th October, 1925, to 8th February, 1926, 18,488 applications for extended benefit were considered by the Middlesbrough Local Employment Committee, of which 15,824 were recommended for allowance and 2,664 for disallowance. At 8th February there were 433 applications adjourned for further information, and 311 applications awaiting consideration by the Committee.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the refusal of over 2,000 for extended benefit has imposed a transfer to the local rates, and will he reconsider the revision of the condition under which benefit is granted?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, that is really a matter for debate and not a supplementary question. Of course, I cannot accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman bases his question.

Sir H. CROFT: May I ask, in view of the deplorable conditions in Middlesbrough, whether, in spite of the hostility of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), the hon. Gentleman will not see that these great industries are safeguarded?

Mr. SCURR: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for extended benefit have been made at the Stepney Employment Exchange since the 1st October, 1925; the number of such claims that have been refused; the number that have been granted; and the number still under consideration?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the period 13th October, 1925, to 8th February, 1926, the Local Employment Committee at Stepney has considered 6,172 applications for extended benefit, of which 3,611 were recommended for allowance and 2,561 for disallowance. At 8th February two applications stood adjourned awaiting further information, and 480 applications were awaiting consideration by the Committee.

Mr. SCURR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment the Stepney Board of Guardians are relieving 3,600 unemployed men?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I was not aware of that.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED, ATTERCLIFFE

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the grounds upon which Andrew McCabe, 10, Trent Street, Attercliffe, has been refused benefit; whether, when before the Committee, there was any complaint as to McCabe's conduct; and, if so, what was the nature, of the complaint?

Mr. BETTERTON: Mr. Albert McCabe's claim to extended benefit was disallowed, on the recommendation of a Rota Committee, on 27th November, on the ground that he was not making reasonable efforts to obtain employment. His claim was again considered on 11th December and the previous recommendation was confirmed. I understand that Mr. McCabe on learning that benefit would not be allowed created a certain amount of disturbance, but this was after the decision had been reached.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the cases of John Griffiths and T. O. Hughes, both of Penrhyndendraeth, whose claims to un employment insurance benefit have been rejected on the ground that they left their employment voluntarily and without just cause; whether he is aware that the men in question were discharged by their employers because the work on which they were engaged was finished; and whether, in view of this fact, he will take steps to see that the men receive the benefit they are entitled to?

Mr. BETTERTON: My information is that Hughes was asked by his employers
to transfer to another job, but failed to report at the proper time. Benefit was disallowed by the Insurance Officer on the ground stated in the question, and on appeal to the Court of Referees the disallowance of benefit was upheld. I have no power to intervene, but if the hon. Member is aware of any fresh facts which were not before the Court, it would no doubt be possible to obtain a further hearing. As regards the other case referred to in the question, there is more than one man of this name claiming benefit at the local office, and if the hon. Member will let me have further particulars for identification purposes I shall be happy to communicate with him on the matter.

Mr. COMPTON: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a personal letter from the chairman of the Openshaw employment sub-committee relative to the case of John Bailey, steel moulder, whose claim was granted by the committee and disallowed by his officers, in which letter the chairman stated he was writing at the unanimous request of his committee, they believing that there were many cases similar to that of Bailey's; and what action, if any, he has taken in the matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the chairman of the sub-committee with regard to this case, and has replied explaining fully why benefit cannot be allowed. The plea on behalf of this claimant is really made on compassionate grounds, which, admittedly, are strong, but my right hon. Friend would be failing in his duty if he allowed benefit to be paid on this ground, where, as in this case, the Statutory requirements are not satisfied.

Mr. COMPTON: Is it not a fact that the Minister, when he addressed a meeting in Manchester under the chairmanship of the Lord Mayor, invited the chairmen of local committees to place any cases before him, and will he give consideration to the unanimous finding of the committee, the chairman of which is a representative of a well-known firm of employers?

Mr. BETTERTON: With reference to my right hon. Friend's speech in Manchester, obviously that question must be addressed to him. With regard to this ease, as I said in the answer, the statutory requirements are not satisfied.

Mr. COMPTON: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that the chairman of the Openshaw Employment Committee, replying to the Blanesburgh questionnaire, Section 6 (b), stated that less than 1 per cent. of disallowed applicants for extended benefit afterwards obtained employment, and that they were able to trace over 60 per cent. of those to the Poor Law authorities in the district, he can state if such statistics have been compiled for the country generally; and with what result?

Mr. BETTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. HARDIE: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Martha Curran, 130, Gaingad Hill, became unemployed in April, 1924, and was then paid two weeks' benefit, when she accepted a situation in Stolehill hospital through the Employment Exchange, which situation she kept for nearly two years, and that, on coming back to the Exchange, she was informed that, as she had not been engaged in insurable employment, she had no claim to benefit; and will he investigate this case with a view to making it public that a person in similar circumstances will not be penalised for taking uninsurable employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. LANSBURY: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the officially admitted fact that 143 women entitled to extended benefit were refused such benefit from the first moment they applied, and in view of the consequent hardship involved and the fact that owing to non- membership of a trade union these women cannot appeal to the Umpire, he will order a special investigation into all these cases and similar cases at other Exchanges throughout the country?

Mr. BETTERTON: I assume that the reference is to a statement in a letter from my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member to the effect that during the three months 1st November, 1925, to 30th January, 1926, 142 women claiming
standard (not extended) benefit at the Stepney Employment Exchange were disallowed as from the date of the claim on the ground of not genuinely seeking work. These women would have the usual right of appeal to a Court of Referees, and so far as I am aware, the disallowance of benefit has been upheld in practically all cases where they have so appealed. I may add that in consequence of the hon. Member's representations the position at the Stepney Exchange was specially examined, and apart from one or two minor items, which are being corrected, matters were found to be quite in order. In these circumstances I do not think there is any need for a further investigation.

Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the statement of the hon. Gentleman confirming the figures given in the letter which states that one in eight of the applicants for standard benefit among the women at this Exchange were disallowed from the first moment of their application; prima facie, should we not have an inquiry into the other Exchanges in order to know how many women are being robbed of the benefit for which they have paid?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is the point raised by my hon. Friend in debate the other day. He will probably agree with me that it is better to deal with the matter in debate to-day than by supplementing question and answer.

Miss WILKINSON: As a question of general principle, how is it possible to say that a person is not genuinely seeking employment as from the date of their application when there has been no time to inquire?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is precisely the point I am going to deal with this afternoon.

Mr. LANSBURY: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will inform the House why Mr. E. Shiers, of 77, Rippoth Road, Bow, has been refused unemployment standard benefit by the Hackney Employment Exchange?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. LANSBURY: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state to the House on what evidence the Exchange
authorities decided that Mr. A. Danby, of 35, Candy Street, Bow, was not genuinely seeking work; is he aware that when summoned before the committee the main question asked this man was how old he was, and that the investigation lasted only three minutes; and whether, in view of the man's declaration that he has proof of his diligent search for work, he will allow an appeal to the Umpire?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that extended benefit has been refused to Mr. W. H. Dew, of 208, Meadow Head, Sheffield, classification No. 56/2, on the ground that it was not in the public interest to pay him, although this man has worked intermittently ever since his discharge from the Army, is now over 26 years of age, but living with his father, has been genuinely seeking work since his last engagement of five months with Messrs. Arthur Lee and Sons, Wincobank, Sheffield, as a turner and fitter, and is perfectly willing to take any kind of employment offered; if he will state on what grounds it was decided that it was not in the public interest to give this man benefit; and whether he will reconsider this case?

Mr. BETTERTON: Mr. Dew's claim was disallowed, on the recommendation of the local committee, on the ground that he is a single man who can reasonably look to his relatives for support. The case was subsequently reheard by a committee, and the previous recommendation was confirmed. I am afraid that I can see no reason for varying the decision.

Mr. PALING: That is how to reduce the number of unemployed!

EMPLOYERS' CERTIFICATES, BLAYDON.

Mr. WHITELEY: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Blaydon Employment Exchange is refusing to accept certificates from certain employers as evidence that unemployed persons have been seeking work; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made with regard to this matter, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (COST).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour the cost of Employment Exchanges per annum in terms of the cost per head of finding employment for an unemployed applicant?

Mr. BETTERTON: The cost of the Employment Exchanges is not allocated in this way, and I am afraid if I attempted to give a figure it would be bound to be misleading. Nearly the whole cost is incurred in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, and is paid for out of the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount paid in salaries for the staff of the Risca Employment Exchange for each of the four weeks commencing the 1st, 8th, 15th and 22nd February, 1926, and the numbers registering for the same weeks?

Mr. BETTERTON: The information desired has been prepared in the form of a tabular statement, which, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information desired:


Week commencing.
Total amount paid in salaries.
Number of persons on the register.




£
s.
d.



1st February
…
31
8
3
1,276


8th February
…
25
19
7
1,254


15th February
…
25
19
7
1,329


22nd February
…
163
8
2*
1,222


* Including £136 10s. 6d. in respect of the salaries of permanent officers paid monthly.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the selection of sites for Employment Exchanges, the main consideration, apart from rent and rates, is situation in the centre of an industrial area in any city or town?

Mr. BETTERTON: The policy of the Department is to select sites or buildings for Employment Exchanges in positions
reasonably accessible to employers and employés. Due regard is given to the cost involved, and main business thoroughfares are avoided as far as possible.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in choosing these sites, the Ministry try to get the Employment Exchanges central for working-class districts, or whether they are put in the fashionable or trading parts of the town?

Mr. BETTERTON: In selecting sites for these Exchanges we do not select particular parts of towns, but at the same time we do endeavour to find sites which are reasonably accessible to those who, we think, will have occasion to use the Exchanges.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of that answer, will the hon. Gentleman in future take steps to see that Employment Exchanges are not placed in fashionable parts of towns, as in many cases they have been?

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Has the hon. Gentleman taken this matter up with the Office of Works?

Mr. BETTERTON: We are continually taking it up with the Office of Works.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has taken any steps to change some of the Employment Exchanges which are in most unsuitable positions?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that to change the situation of an existing Exchange will often defeat the very object which, I presume, he has in view, namely, economy.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Do we gather from the hon. Gentleman's answer that it is undesirable that fashionable people should know that there are unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: Not at all.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour whether staffs of Employment Exchanges are engaged as permanent or as temporary employés; and, if in both capacities, whether, taking all the staffs in the country as a whole, he can indicate the respective percentages of permanent and temporary employés?

Mr. BETTERTON: The staff of the out-stations of the Employment Department is composed partly of permanent and partly of temporary officers. The proportions on the 1st March were 52.3 per cent. permanent and 47.7 per cent. temporary.

WOOLLEN AND WORSTED TRADES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the rate of unemployment in the woollen and worsted trades in June, 1925?

Mr. BETTERTON: The percentage rate of unemployment in Great Britain at 22nd June, 1925, among persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and classified as belonging to the woollen and worsted industry was 19.6.

Sir H. CROFT: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the enormous increase of the imports for the woollen and the worsted trades in the last four years, and should not this question be considered again?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. ROSE: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether members of rota committees at the Employment Exchanges are authorised, when considering claims to extended benefits, to ask war pensioners what amount of pension they are receiving, and to suggest to such claimants that they ought to be able to maintain themselves, wives and families without receiving further benefit from the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. BETTERTON: Any pension drawn by the claimant himself has to be included in cases where the rules relating to extended benefit require the family income to be taken into account. In such cases, therefore, the Committees are entitled to make the inquiries referred to. I may add that a memorandum on this subject is about to be issued to Committees, and a copy will be placed in the Library in the usual course.

TRAINING CENTRES FOR WOMEN.

Mr. SPOOR: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of women who have passed through the training centres for unemployed women and how many of this number subsequently obtained permanent employment; whether any estimate has been made as to the consequent
saving in unemployment insurance benefit; whether he is satisfied that the expenditure upon these training centres is justified by the results; and, if so, whether he has considered the advisability of developing the scheme?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of women who have passed through the training centres for unemployed women is approximately 29,200. The available information indicates that a substantial proportion were absorbed into permanent employment, but I cannot give precise figures, nor can I estimate the saving in unemployment benefit attributable to the training scheme. I am satisfied that the results justify the expenditure which has been incurred, but I am afraid any further development of the scheme is at present out of the question.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why, if he considers the results justify the expenditure, he is proposing almost to halve the expenditure?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is one of the few schemes by which the Government are helping women in any way, before he considers cutting it down? Women feel very strongly about this.

Mr. BETTERTON: In answer to both these supplementary questions, I would say that there are many admirable schemes for which I should be very glad to see the amounts increased, if the money were forthcoming.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is the only thing the Government are doing for women, and that it is a paying proposition?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot altogether agree with that. This is a scheme on which the results have justified the expenditure, but I am afraid that, under present conditions, there is no prospect of developing it?

Viscountess ASTOR: If the hon. Gentleman says I am wrong, will he tell me of another single thing which the Government are doing to assist women who are unemployed?

DAWLISH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he
has received a further communication from the Dawlish Urban District Council concerning the refusal of the Unemployment Grants Committee to sanction certain schemes put forward for the relief of unemployment; whether he is aware that these schemes were put forward in consequence of his letter of 30th March, 1925; whether they were in accordance with the terms of this letter; and, if so, whether he will use his influence to obtain, sanction for some of these schemes in order that the men may be given useful employment which will be of benefit to the town, instead of being forced to draw unemployment benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The letter from the Unemployment Grants Committee of 30th March, 1925, asked for schemes to be submitted by the 1st August and in any event not later than 1st September, 1925. The Dawlish Urban District Council's schemes were not submitted until 24th December, 1925. As stated in answer to a previous question by my hon. and gallant Friend on the 4th March, the Committee were unable to approve the schemes for grant, as unemployment in the area cannot be regarded as exceptional.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that at the time when these schemes were put in, the amount of unemployment was exceptional in proportion to the population?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I was not aware of that; but from the information I have received I gather there is no doubt that the unemployment in Dawlish now can, fortunately for them, not be regarded as exceptional.

Mr. PALING: Is it the considered policy to cut down the number of these applications under the Unemployment Grants scheme.

Mr. BETTERTON: I must refer the hon. Member to the Debate on this subject about three weeks ago.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women at present employed on
schemes for the relief of unemployment financed by the Treasury, and the corresponding figures for a year ago?

Mr. BETTERTON: The latest available information was contained in the reply given to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on 24th February, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

ROTA COMMITTEES (REPRESENTATION OF APPLICANTS).

Mr. POTTS: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Regulation is still in force permitting an unemployed person summoned to appear before the rota or other committee to claim to be represented by a trade union official or other representative, such representative attending at his own personal expense; and is he aware that on 4th March last the Barnsley National Unemployed Workers' Committee Movement representative attended a rota committee as hitherto and was declined admittance, the committee stating that they had passed a resolution that in future no such representative would be admitted?

Mr. BETTERTON: The rule referred to is still operative. I am having inquiries made into the particular case, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. POTTS: May I ask whether, presuming that the same person, a trade union leader, presented himself to another rota committee, he would be admitted in the usual course under the Regulations?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think I must have notice of that. This question refers to a particular Workers' Committee movement, and this is the case I am inquiring into. The general rule I have referred to.

Mr. POTTS: The point I want to ask is, is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Regulations permit the attendance of any trade union leader or other representative, and this trade union leader is objected to, and is told by the rota committee that they have been authorised to pass a resolution to prohibit him from attending in the future?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is putting a hypothetical case, or whether he is referring to the case on the Paper. If the
former, I must have notice of the particular case, because I cannot answer a hypothetical question; but if it is the latter, I will have inquiries made into it.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is there anything in the Regulations to prevent an applicant bringing a representative, whether he belongs to a trade union or not?

Mr. BETTERTON: That I could not say without refreshing my memory as to the Regulations. I do not think they do, but I am speaking from memory.

DOCK WORKERS (DECASUALISATION).

Mr. B. SMITH: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to inform the House of the progress of the Docks Decasualisation Committee; and, if the work of the Committee is not yet completed, will he indicate whether any, and what, progress has been made?

Mr. BETTERTON: In 1924 the Committee presented two Interim Reports recommending as a preliminary to any further measures, the establishment of registration schemes for dock workers at a number of scheduled ports and the revision of the schemes already in existence at other ports. These recommendations have been or are being carried out at the principal ports scheduled, and, in view of the progress made generally, the Committee have intimated their willingness to remain in being, so that they may continue to assist in any way possible in the further measures taken to deal with the casual labour problem at the docks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LIFT AND GUIDE DUTIES.

Viscount SANDON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make representations to West End firms to utilise disabled ex-service men in place of girls for lift and guide duties?

Mr. BETTERTON: Representations have been made on various occasions to West End firms to employ disabled ex-service men by the King's Roll National Council, local King's Roll committee and by my right hon. Friend. Special attention has been directed to
the possibility of employing these men on the work suggested by my Noble Friend. A large number of these firms appear on the King's National Roll, and I do not feel that I can usefully take any further steps at the moment. I hope, however, that the large retail establishments will endeavour to employ an increasing number of disabled ex-service men.

Viscount SANDON: Can the hon. Gentleman say on what grounds the firms have hitherto refused to do it?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I say in my answer, my right hon. Friend has approached individual firms and associations on very many occasions, and he will continue to do so whenever opportunity arises.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in making this representation, be quite certain that no war widows or children are turned out even for ex-service men?

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask may sex should enter into the matter at all; why should a woman be turned out in order to provide a man with a job?

Mr. BETTERTON: That, again, raises a large question, with which I cannot deal in reply to a question.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Will these girls be considered as not genuinely seeking work?

Mr. BETTERTON: That depends on each individual case.

UNEMPLOYMENT, NOTTINGHAM.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that there are over 400 highly disabled ex-soldiers in Nottingham who cannot obtain employment; and whether the Government will cause fresh inquiries to be made into the problem of finding work for ex-soldiers suffering from a high rate of disability?

Mr. BETTERTON: According to my information the number of disabled men in Nottingham classified as unsuitable for employment under ordinary industrial conditions is 39, while those classified as fit for light work under such conditions is 258. The local King's Roll Committee
takes an active interest in the problem of finding employment for these men, and certain special proposals are being discussed with the Department at the present time. The general problem of finding employment for heavily disabled men is continually under review, with the advice and assistance of the King's Roll National Council.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Cannot the hon. Gentleman relax the rule in favour of the highly disabled soldiers who have already drifted on to the Poor Law—I mean the rule as to two years' employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: The rule which says that there must be a reasonable amount of employment within the last few years is not necessarily a bar. It may be waived in suitable cases under, I think, paragraph 37 of the Instructions given to the local committees. As to the special point of the disabled men, my right hon. Friend is now specially considering it.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable number of highly-disabled men who have already drifted on to the Poor Law?

Mr. SPENCER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that over 50 per cent. of these men have not the remotest possible chance of getting work at the present time: therefore, will he give these cases further and adequate consideration?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is the inquiry my right hon. Friend is making. I have no doubt there, are a number of cases of highly-disabled men whose chances of getting employment are not very bright.

RELIEF WORK SCHEMES.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is made a condition that a certain percentage of ex-service men shall be employed on all work done under State-aided schemes for the relief of unemployment; and, if so, whether this condition is ever relaxed and on what conditions?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is a condition for a grant in respect of approved relief work schemes that not less than 75 per cent. of the unemployed men taken on for the work shall be ex-service men.
This condition is very seldom relaxed, and only when a sufficient number of unemployed ex-service men is not available or the proportion of non-ex-service men unemployed to the ex-service men is exceptionally high.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in deference to the widespread feeling amongst many sections of the community, he will consider the desirability of introducing, at an early date, a Measure which will enable all members of trades unions to register their votes in cases of industrial disputes according to the accepted Parliamentary method?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): There is no statutory restriction, except in respect of a political levy, on the freedom of trade unions to determine their own procedure for ascertaining the views of their members on particular questions. As at present advised, I am not satisfied that it is necessary to interfere with this freedom.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that this request emanates from the people most concerned, that is, trade union members and their wives; and will he also consider that these people are among the most loyal and staunch supporters of the Government?

Mr. LUNN: Has the Prime Minister received representations for this reform from any of the trade unions in the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have had no representations, but they would not necessarily come to me.

Mr. LUNN: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to express an opinion, as in this question, that there is a widespread feeling among many sections, when it is not true of any trade union? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I am very reluctant to express an opinion on the matter. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are inclined to think that there is a widespread opinion when it is their own.

Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. Are hon. Members entitled to say that a thing is not true, when every single Member on this side of the House has received such representation?

Mr. SPEAKER: Each Member thinks his opinion to be the true one.

Mr. TAYLOR: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the summoning of a representative industrial conference to explore the possibilities of an agreed policy as the basis of an era of industrial peace in all the great staple industries of the country; and whether he would be willing to charge such a conference with the duty of considering and reporting upon a national living wage, the over-capitalisation of industry, the effect of monetary policy, and the incidence of local and national taxation upon the economic life of the nation?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Member is probably aware, discussions are already in progress in a number of industries. I feel sure that the method of approaching the matter industry by industry is the most profitable one, and it seems to me a general conference of the kind proposed would not serve any useful purpose at the present time.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (BROADCASTING).

Captain FRASER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the Broadcasting Committee has reported, he is prepared to say what steps he proposes to take to determine the feasibility and desirability of permitting the broadcasting of certain specially chosen portions of the Parliamentary proceedings; and if it would be possible, as an experiment, to arrange for the broadcasting of the Budget Speech, or a portion thereof, and the considered replies, or portions thereof, of the spokesmen for the Opposition?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is obviously a matter on which Parliament should be consulted, and I am considering the best means of obtaining their views.

Captain FRASER: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it at all possible to secure any of the views in time to have
the advantage of broadcasting the Budget, which appears to be an excellent opportunity for the experiment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that question. I propose to consult the leaders of the diffierent parties in the House as to what will be the best form to attain the object in view.

Captain A. EVANS: In view of the fact that the Committee set up by the Prime Minister have stated in their Report that they considered the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings did not come within the scope of their terms of reference, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee of this House to consider that point? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. BATEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister which day this week the House will be in possession of the Coal Commission's Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: A very limited number of copies will be placed in the Vote Office late to-night, and full delivery to the Vote Office will be made to-morrow morning.

Mr. BATEY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he intends to embody in a Bill the proposals of the Coal Commission and to ask the House to pass it before the Easter Adjournment?

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 51.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a statement to the House on the Report of the Coal Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Report is not yet available, and until the Government have had an opportunity of considering it I am obviously not in a position to make any statement.

COLLIERY RETURNS, EASTERN AREA.

Mr. LEE: 80.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that several colliery companies in the eastern area did not supply returns of output and proceeds to the district accountants for the month of January; whether such returns are sent into the Mines Department later;
whether such colliery companies are paid the subsidy; and, if so, upon what basis is it paid?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have been informed by the area accountants that returns for January have not been received from certain collieries in the eastern area. Inquiries are being made, and in the meantime subvention is being withheld.

Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that a number of these collieries never send in returns, will the right hon. Gentleman make it a condition of their receiving the subsidy that they shall be compelled to send in returns like every other colliery?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, that is what is always done.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL).

Mr. R. SMITH: 50.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the critical proceedings of the Council, now sitting, of the League of Nations, whether he can make any statement to the House as to the entry of Germany into the League?

The PRIME MINISTER: The usual formal inquiries are in process that precede the admission of a new member to the League of Nations. I anticipate neither delay nor difficulty in connection with this matter.

TRADE BOARD INQUIRIES.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour upon what date the Reports of his inquiries into the grocery and provisions, catering, drapery, and meat distributive trades will be available?

Mr. BETTERTON: The Reports to which the hon. Member refers will, I hope, be published in the course of a few weeks. I cannot yet state the dates.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Can we know why there is such delay in giving the House this information, when the Government had it many weeks ago?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, there has been great pressure upon the Stationery Office, and we have not been able to issue the Reports up to the present, but I hope it will he possible to issue them in about three weeks.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask whether it would be possible for hon. Members who are specially interested in this subject to have these Reports before they are printed?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, certainly not. Until they are printed, it would be quite impossible to circulate them.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be possible to employ outside and efficient labour?

Captain GEE: Could not the hon. Gentleman take steps, in the interests of economy, to get these Reports printed by contract?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is a point with which I have no power to deal.

Captain GEE: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the proper authority?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ENGLISH-GROWN WHEAT.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in placing contracts for supplying bread and flour, he will insert a clause that will ensure a proportion of English-grown wheat being used?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The Air Ministry itself places no contracts for bread and flour, practically all the supplies required by the Air Force being drawn under Army contracts, and the reply given yesterday to the similar question addressed by my hon. and gallant Friend to the Secretary of State for War will cover, therefore, this present question.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Are biscuits supplied to the Air Force?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If any such clause is inserted, will the right hon. Gentleman see that a similar clause is inserted protecting Scotch barley?

Mr. HARRISON: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the approximate quantities of imported meat and home-fed meat consumed by the Air Force in this country for the year 1925?

Sir S. HOARE: The approximate total consumption was 2,110 tons, all being imported meat drawn under Army contracts.

Mr. HARRISON: In making these contracts has the right hon. Gentleman a list before him of home price quotations?

Sir S. HOARE: The contracts are all made through the Army Department, and questions on that subject ought to be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the enthusiasm of all sections of the House for the policy of buying British goods, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the War Office in order that the flow of wisdom may be purified at the fountain head?

Sir S. HOARE: This Department does everything in its power to secure the largest possible purchase of British and Imperial goods.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give the percentage value of all the foodstuffs and also of all other stores and materials purchased by his Department during the past financial year, and which were of foreign origin?

Sir S. HOARE: The Air Ministry makes no contracts for foodstuffs, practically all supplies being obtained under Army contracts. As regards other stores and materials, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) on 7th December last, when I gave particulars of the value of foreign equipment outstanding on 1st November, 1924, and stated that the policy of the Air Ministry was to rely on British sources of supply. To supplement that answer would involve considerable additional labour, which would hardly be justified. I can assure my hon. Friend that the volume of foreign purchases is almost negligible.

Sir F. WISE: Is this not a matter for a Minister of Defence?

Sir S. HOARE: It is obviously not a question which should be addressed to my Department.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does it not seem that the Air Force is drifting back to the Army?

AIRCRAFT AND ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS (COMBINED EXERCISE).

Mr. THURTLE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether before deciding to carry out a sham air attack on London he will take into consideration the disturbing effect such an attack would have upon the nerves of the people, especially those who experienced air raids during the War?

Sir S. HOARE: Assuming that the hon. Member is referring to the proposed combined exercise to be carried out next May by aircraft and anti-aircraft units, I am glad to say that the arrangements will be such as to occasion no alarm to the population. There is to be no organised sham air attack, but a few machines will fly over London to afford practice to anti-aircraft and searchlight units. There will be no firing.

NEW ENGINES.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if the Curtiss engine purchased by the Air Ministry has now passed the 100-hour type test; and, if not, how many trials have been made and how many times the engine has failed?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; and, in regard to the second part, I do not think it is expedient that I should say more than that the test is still in progress.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 71.
also asked what proportion of the sum of £1,537,000, during 1925, was spent on the purchase of new engines; and what proportion of the sum of £1,031,000, allocated for 1926, is likewise to be spent on new engines?

Sir S. HOARE: So far as I am aware, foreign Powers do not ordinarily publish information as to their expenditure on new engines from year to year, and in these circumstances I should prefer not to depart from the previous practice of my Department and give these particulars in respect of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask whether the money to be spent on new engines will be spent in this country, or will these engines be ordered from America?

Sir S. HOARE: All the money to be spent on new engines during the next financial year will be paid to British firms.

AIRCRAFT (SALES ABROAD).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give particulars of the sales abroad by British aircraft industries year by year since 1920; to which countries the goods are destined, and whether private firms or Governments; and what increase in foregn trade may be expected as a result of the concessions in selling which it is this year proposed to introduce?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, the hon. Member will find particulars of the exports of aircraft, engines, and parts, for 1920 and the four subsequent years, in the Annual Statement of Trade for the United Kingdom, 1924, volume 3, page 469. I understand that particulars for 1925 will be published in due course. As regards the second part, the published figures indicate the countries of destination, but not whether the purchasers were private firms or Governments. I am afraid I have no information to enable me to reply to the last part of the question, but there is little doubt, I think, that the proposed withdrawal of certain restrictions on the sale abroad of the later types of machines should result in an improvement in this trade.

HOP CULTIVATION.

Colonel DAY: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the approximate stock of hops at present unsold; whether he has received any notification from Mid-Kent hopgrowers of their intention to reduce the acreage of hop cultivation this year; and whether any action is contemplated in this regard?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Approximately 106,000 cwts. of hops of 1924 and previous years' growths remain unsold. I have no information as to the balance of 1925 hops which axe unsold. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that a scheme to secure, if possible, a 10 per cent. reduction of acreage is being organised by English Hop
Growers Limited, on a voluntary basis. The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that my responsibility with regard to hops ceased in August, 1925, when the Hop Control terminated.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear upon brewers to use hops in the brewing of beer?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear upon Kent farmers to grow wheat, instead of hops?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Barley!

Mr. PALING: Are we to assume that the duty put on imported hops last year has been of no benefit to the Mid-Kent growers?

Mr. GUINNESS: No; I do not think any such assumption is to be drawn from these figures. I do not see that any loss need have been suffered by those who had 1924 hops, seeing the very large size of the crop and the fact that they all received 80 per cent. of the value.

Mr. PALING: Was it not argued in the Debate on that duty that the putting on of the duty would increase rather than decrease the acreage under cultivation?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND).

Mr. HARDIE: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the price paid for the ground in the Gaingad District being used for the building of Weir houses; how long the ground had been idle; whether the owner paid any rates upon that ground; and what is the name of the owner?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am informed that the agreed price for the ground in Gaingad District, being used for the building of steel houses by the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited, is £3,125, which includes £1,500 for streets and sewers; that the ground has been idle for about 20 years; that rates were paid upon this ground; and that the owners are Archibald Stewart's Trustees.

Mr. HARDIE: What was the basis upon which rates were paid on that land? Was it on the basis of vacant land or the subjects on that land?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it is very undesirable that this question should be put to me, because it relates to a transaction that was carried out, with proper authority, by the Scottish National Housing Company.

Mr. HARDIE: What we want to understand in Glasgow is whether the Government is the body with which we have to deal when we ask questions, or whether we have to go to Edinburgh and ask the company? So far as this ground is concerned, I want to know whether the purchase was made by the Government or for the Government, and is the ground now owned by the Government or the company, or with whom are we to assume the responsibility for the ownership of that ground rests?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The company is the body which purchased the ground and the Government have a representative on the company.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the ground now the property of the Scottish National Housing Company or is it the property of the Government, and will the right hon. Gentleman say who has paid the money for it?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The ground is the property of the company and will be administered by the company.

Mr. HARDIE: If the ground is the property of the company and it has been bought with the money of the Government, how does the right hon. Gentleman square that with the statement he made and which the Prime Minister made about leaving nothing in the way of houses being put up?

Mr. HARDIE: 75.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is making inquiries regarding the vacant ground on the north side of Alexandra Parade and Cumbernauld Road, Glasgow, with a view to house building?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I presume the hon. Member refers to inquiries regarding vacant ground on which to erect some of the steel houses to be built by the Second Scottish National Housing Com-
pany (Housing Trust), Limited, and I am informed that no inquiries are being made by the Housing Trust regarding a site for these houses on the north side of Alexandra Parade and Cumbernauld Road.

Mr. HARDIE: Why is the right hon. Gentleman not getting something done in regard to this good ground, instead of the old ground for which he has been paying, and where foundations cannot be got in? It is swindling away Government money—[Interruption.]

COMPANIES ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the members of the Depart mental Committee appointed to consider and report an any necessary amendments of the Companies Acts; how many times the Committee has met; and when he expects their Report will be ready for presentation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The names of the Committee are as follow:

Mr. Wilfred Greene, K.C. (Chairman).
Mr. A. Andrewes-Uthwatt.
The Hon. R. H. Brand, C.M.G.
Mr. Harold Brown.
Mr. Archibald H. Campbell.
Mr. William Cash.
Mr. E. R. Eddison, C.M.G.
Sir William McLintock, K.B.E., C.V.O.
Sir Edward Manville.
Sir James Martin.
Mr. W. E. Mortimer.
Mr. Arthur Stiebel.
Mr. R. Hugh Tennant.
Mr. G. W. Wilton, K.C.
The Committee have held 37 meetings. They are now engaged in considering their Report, but I am not yet in a position to say when it will be ready for presentation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Gentleman know if it is within the scope of the Committee's inquiry to consider the legislation in the United States against combines?

Colonel WOODCOCK: If the Committee have held 37 meetings, is it not time we had some sort of Report, seeing that legislation is badly wanted on this subject?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I quite appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety, but if he will look at the Companies Acts and consider their ramifications, he will understand that it is a very big job.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

PARCELS (CASH ON DELIVERY).

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: 78.
asked the Postmaster-General if any decision has been arrived at in the matter of parcels post cash on delivery?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a question on this subject asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Northern Division of Lanark (Sir A. Sprot).

Captain A. EVANS: Has my right hon. Friend received a number of representations from the principal Chambers of Commerce against the proposal?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

WIRELESS LICENCES.

Sir F. WISE: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of licences taken out to the end of February on account of wireless?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of wireless receiving licences in force at the end of February was approximately 1,906,000.

NIGHT TELEGRAPH LETTERS.

Captain CAZALET: 81.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the institution in this country of night letters such as are in use in the Dominions and the United States of America; and whether any scheme to establish them has been considered by his Department?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A service is already in operation under which night telegraph letters may be sent between towns in which the head offices are open till a late hour at night, for delivery by first post the next morning.
They may be handed in at, or telephoned to, a head office at which the service is in operation at any time before midnight (or before its hour of closing if that is earlier than midnight), or posted in time to reach it by the same hour. The rate is 1s. for 36 words or less, and 1d. for every three words beyond 36. Full details are set out in the Post Office Guide.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BELLEEK POTTERY).

Mr. PARKINSON: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to take any action to secure a reciprocal agreement between the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State with respect to unemployment insurance, in view of the fact that persons normally employed at the Belleek Pottery in Northern Ireland territory, but living in the Irish Free State, are now denied unemployment benefit, although they have been insured persons?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The matter is one which is entirely within the competence of the two Irish Governments, and I cannot intervene.

TRANSFERRED CIVIL SERVANTS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the event of his scale of salary being reduced or his pension rights or other conditions of service under which he was serving at the time of his transfer being made worse after the end of the transitional period, an Irish civil servant who was transferred from the British to the Irish Free State Government can claim to retire with special terms; if so, what special terms he would be entitled to claim; and whether the rights and privileges of such civil servants, which they held at the date of their transfer, are protected by Article 10 of the Treaty, after as well as during the transitional period?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): The rights conferred by Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement upon civil servants transferred from the
British Government to the Government of the Irish Free State are statutory rights, the force of law having been given to them in the Irish Free State by Article 78 of the First Schedule to the Constitution of the Irish Free State Act, 1922, of the Irish Free State Parliament. An authoritative interpretation of those statutory rights can, however, only be given by a Court of Law, and I am not, therefore, in a position to answer that part of the hon. Member's question.

WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC.

Colonel DAY: 83.
asked the Home Secretary whether there is a special department of the Metropolitan Police to deal with white slave traffic matters; and, if so, who is the responsible officer?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: These matters involving police action, when they arise, are dealt with by the Criminal Investigation Department, under the orders of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is also the central authority for the United Kingdom under the International Agreement and Conventions relating to the traffic in women.

Colonel DAY: Was there not an officer in charge of this department, and is not that necessary at the present time, in view of the many girls that are being shipped to the Continent?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: No, Sir; I think the work is being very efficiently carried on by the Commissioner of Police. If the hon. Member can give me any reason for doubting that, I will make full inquiry.

METHYLATED SPIRIT.

Mr. SCURR: 84.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that inquests were held in London during 1926 on 17 persons in which the verdicts attributed the cause of death to excessive drinking, most of the cases being due to the in creased habit of drinking methylated spirit; and whether he proposes to intro duce legislation to secure that this spirit shall be rendered unpalatable for drinking purposes.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will, with permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Arising out of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the price of whisky to a reasonable figure?

Following is the answer:

Sir. W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The figure given by the hon. Member is correct, and compares favourably with the corresponding figures for 1923 and 1924, which were 31 and 35 respectively. I cannot confirm that the beverage was methylated spirit, but on that assumption the figures give some reason to hope that the introduction of pyridine as an ingredient, which began on 1st May, 1924, has had beneficial results; and the suggestion is supported by a substantial decrease in 1925 of the number of persons convicted of drunken-

Defence Expenditure.


—
Effective.
Middle East.
Annual Charges for the service of previous Naval and Military Works 
loans.
Non-Effective.
Total.




£
£
£
£
£

1907–8
…
49,867,000
—
2,337,000
6,186,000
58,390,000


1908–9
…
50,367,000
—
2,387,000
6,286,000
59,040,000


1909–10
…
54,052,000
—
2,477,000
6,448,000
62,977,000


1910–11
…
58,943,000
—
2,474,000
6,551,000
67,968,000


1911–12
…
61,220,000
—
2,189,000
6,657,000
70,066,000


1912–13
…
63,978,000
—
2,202,000
6,776,000
72,956,000


1913–14
…
68,051,000
—
2,188,000
6,860,000
77,099,000


1919–20
…
593,704,000
—2,238,000
24,260,000
620,202,000


1920–21
…
259,656,000
—
2,238,000
15,988,000
277,882,000


1921–22
…
159,342,000
23,246,000
2,238,000
14,066,000
198,892,000


1922–23
…
95,552,000
7,637,000
2,194,000
18,965,000
124,318,000


1923–24
…
93,352,000
4,808,000
2,068,000
15,793,000
116,021,000


1924–25
…
97,404,000
4,107,000
2,068,000
16,092,000
119,671,000


1925–26*
…
102,933,000
3,432,000
1,487,000
16,093,000
123,945,000


* Estimated.

NATIONAL DEBT (MANAGEMENT COSTS).

Sir F. WISE: 85.
asked the chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of payment for the management of debts in 1925 and the amount for 1913?

The FINACIAL SECERATRY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The total payment in 1925–26 for management was £1,127,953,of which £1,049,866 (chargeable to the Consolidated Fund) was in respect of management of the National Debt, and the balance in respect

ness whose condition was reported as being due to methylated spirit. The preventive measures already adopted appear to be deserving of further trial before the question of further measures is considered.

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

Sir F. WISE: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of defence since the Armistice and the cost of defence the seven years previous to the War?

Mr. McNEILL: With my hon. Friend's consent, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement promised:

of management of the Local Loans Fund and Irish Land Stock. The corresponding payment in 1913 was £202,469, of which £163,825 was charged to the Consolidated Fund. The information is given in full in the Finance Accounts each year.

PALESTINE FRONTIER FORCE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can yet give the House
information as to whether Jews are or are not excluded from the new Palestinian gendarmerie?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statements which I have already made on this subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to do so?

Mr. AMERY: Communications are still passing, but I hope to be able to let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know shortly.

CYPRUS (MR. J. M. ELLIS).

Mr. SCURR: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the award of £1,700 damages in Cyprus to a local lady against Mr. J. M. Ellis, acting Chief Secretary; whether Mr. Ellis is still at Cyprus in the service of the Colonial Office; and, if not, where he is at present employed?

Mr. AMERY: My attention was drawn to this case some time ago. Mr. Ellis is still in the Cyprus service, though at present on leave of absence in this country.

BILLS PRESENTED.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the supply of electricity," presented by Colonel ASHLEY; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 18th March, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to make provision for reducing in respect of certain services the charges on public funds and for increasing, by means of the payment into the Exchequer of certain sums and otherwise, the funds available for meeting such charges, and to amend accordingly the law relating to national health insurance, unemployment insurance, the registration of electors and the holding of elections, education, bankruptcy, and companies' winding-up fees and certain other fees, and postmarks; and for purposes related or incidental to the matters aforesaid," presented by the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; supported by the Prime Minister, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Sir John Gilmour, Lord Eustace Percy, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, and Mr. Ronald McNeill; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us how far he proposes to go with business to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to get the first five Orders. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 121.

Division No. 74.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-colonel
Bird, E.R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Bullock, Captain M.


Albery, Irving James 
Blundell, F. N
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Burman, J. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Applin, Colonel R. V. K. 
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brass, Captain W.
Campbell, E. T.


Astor, Viscountess
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briggs, J. Harold
Cazalet, Caption Victor A.


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Chapman, Sir S.


Bennett, A. J.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Christie, J. A.


Berry, Sir George
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Betterton, Henry B.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ramsden, E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remer, J. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Remnant, Sir James 


Cope, Major William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crowe)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jacob, A. E.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Davison. Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sinclair. Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Elveden, Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. 
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) 
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fielden, E. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Finburgh, S.
Lougher, L.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacIntyre, I.
Templeton, W. P.


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gates, Percy
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gee, Captain R.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tinne, J. A.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grant, J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C R. (Ayr)
Wells, S. R.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hanbury, C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Harland, A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nuttall, Ellis 
Wise, Sir Fredric


Haslam, Henry C.
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M-
Penny, Frederick George 
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pielou, D. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Preston, William



Hilton, Cecil
Price, Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Radford, E. A.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromley, J.
Day, Colonel Harry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Dennison, R. 


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cape, Thomas
Fenby, T. D.


Baker, Walter
Charleton, H. C.
Gillett, George M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Barnes, A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greenall, T.


Barr, J.
Connolly, M.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Batey, Joseph
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)




Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A.


Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Purcell, A. A.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Varley, Frank B.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Riley, Ben
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.
Warne, G. H.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kenyon, Barnet
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lansbury, George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lawson, John James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lee, F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lowth, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


Mackinder, W.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Wright, W.


MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Maxton, James
Snell, Harry



Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Montague, Frederick
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Morris, R. H.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles



Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.



First two Resolutions agreed to.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the further relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.
I have adopted this procedure because I hope, with some confidence, that after an explanation of the Bill I can persuade the House to treat it as a non-controversial one, and that it will be given a Second Reading and sent to a Committee, after which I hope, again with confidence, that the Government will give such slight further facilities as are necessary to enable it to be passed into law. May I make one observation of a personal nature? I myself, as my friends and colleagues generally know, am not a Roman Catholic. I am from birth and by conviction a member of the Church of England, and it is as such that I appeal to other Members to pass this Bill for reasons of that charity and toleration, upon which all civilised religions are based. And I appeal to Members of the House generally, as a Member of Parliament, to do away, as this Bill will do, with certain relics of religious strife and bitterness which are entirely out of place in our laws at present. In form the Bill consists of one Clause and a Schedule. The Clause revokes certain Statutes and portions of Statutes which are set out in the Schedule. May I first state the things the Bill does not do? In the first place, it does not interfere in
any way with the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, or the Protestant Succession to the Crown, nor does it interfere in any way with the disability of members of the Roman Catholic Church to exercise patronage in the Church of England, nor does it affect in any way the position of the Lord Chancellor. Many Members, perhaps, will think there was no reason why the Bill should not include the office of Lord Chancellor, but it has been left out because we wish the Bill to be entirely non-controversial. Perhaps, on the subject of the Lord Chancellor, I might be allowed to refer to a remark which has been made by very many in my hearing as to the reasons there are, or are supposed to be, why the Lord Chancellor should not be a Roman Catholic. The first reason which seems to be given by everybody who is asked the question is, "Oh, the Lord Chancellor is the keeper of the King's conscience." I wonder how many Members of this House who would glibly make that answer have the slightest idea what is the meaning of the phrase. If the House will allow me, I would like to tell them. The reason why the Lord Chancellor is sometimes still styled "the Keeper of the King's conscience," is because in the old pre-Reformation days, when the Lord Chancellor was an ecclesiastic, he was the ecclesiastic who was the private confessor of the King. It must be quite obvious that the phrase, "the Keeper of the King's conscience,"
is absolutely meaningless at the present time. If there be any practical relic of it left, it is that the Lord Chancellor is, on behalf of the King, the guardian of lunatics in this country.
Having stated what the Bill does not do, may I just state very shortly what it does do. In the first place, it proposes to sweep away a number of disabilities which have in actual fact fallen into entire disuse. Not only is it for that reason convenient that they should be wiped off the Statute Book, but they do at present seem to cast a slur, an undeserved slur, upon members of the Roman Catholic religion; and, moreover, there is always the possibility of attempts being made to put them into force by a common informer. The particular disabilities or perils from which the Bill proposes to relieve members of this religion include the prohibition on a priest or a dignatory of the Roman Catholic Church being seen in his robes outside a private house or a Roman Catholic Church. If a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church attends, as he often does, a big public dinner, he is, under the law as it now stands, liable to a penalty of £50 for doing so, and he is equally liable to that penalty if he proceeds from his private house through the streets in those garments either to his usual place of worship or to any place of meeting in connection with his Church or elsewhere. There are many similar disabilities which impose a penalty of that kind. One thing which seems to be rather picturesque is that any Roman Catholic priest is liable to a penalty of this kind if he officiates in a building which possesses a steeple and a bell.
It may seem a little ridiculous to bring in a Bill merely for the purpose of doing away with things of this kind, but this Bill proposes to remedy two practical and serious injustices which do exist at the present time and from which I do not think that there will be any hesitation in the House that Roman Catholics ought to be relieved. Owing to these old Statutes, it is the fact that at the present time certain charities, the income of which in the ordinary way would be exempt from Income Tax, cannot get that exemption because they are Roman Catholic charities or charities which are managed by Roman Catholics or by
Orders belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. The other practical point of a similar nature is that bequests to certain bodies of the Roman Catholic Church are in law void and of no effect. Of course, that has to some extent been got over, but it is an unworthy thing that bequests of that kind for charitable purposes should have to be made by some roundabout legal method instead of being made frankly and honestly for purposes for which people are quite entitled to make them, and for purposes which are for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Having thus shortly explained the Bill, I want to appeal to the House to do the best it can to enable this Bill to be passed into law with a view to getting rid of those anachronisms and those practical injustices to which I have referred, and I would ask those, if any there be in this House, who have some remnant of the old strong Protestant anti-Catholic feeling to remember that repressive laws of this kind, which have no basis in reason or practice, are only a method rather of creating hostility and perhaps fostering, if it were existing, any possible germ of disloyalty to the State. But the House, I think, will agree that the Roman Catholic Church of recent years has not only included, and still does include, an immense number of men and women who have done great service to the State and to the Nation, but that they are, as a body, among the most loyal of any bodies in this country and that the former reasons for legislation against them have entirely disappeared.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Blundell, Major Colfox, Captain Arthur Evans, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Captain Sidney Herbert, Mr. Robert Hudson, Mr. Kidd, Major Kindersley, Sir Joseph Nall, and Dr. Watts.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL,

"to provide for the further relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

SHOPS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Shops Acts, 1912 and 1913.
I feel quite sure that, having heard the circumstances, the House will be willing to give this matter its careful and sympathetic consideration. The Bill which I introduce is a short one of four Clauses, and I trust it may be said that, so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, it is non-controversial, although I have no doubt that improvements will suggest themselves to hon. Members if the Bill be allowed to go forward. The House will desire that some justification shall be given in support of a plea for special legislation to deal with shop assistants. My justification in asking for that special legislation is based upon two main grounds. First of all, there is no occupation in the country which employs so large a number of young persons and women as the retail distributive trades do, and it is well known from medical statistics that their long hours, and particularly their standing, causes a great deal of bad health among them. Secondly, the workers in the distributive trades, unfortunately, are not covered by the Washington Convention, and therefore it may be that they would be likely to be outside of any general legislation.
It may surprise some Members of the House to know that at the present time there is, with two exceptions, no legal limitation of the hours of labour so far as the mass of shop assistants are concerned, in spite of the existing legislation on the subject. The first of these exceptions is that young persons under the age of 18 are not permitted to be employed for more than 74 hours per week inclusive of meal times, and the second exception is that persons in the refreshment trades are not permitted to be employed for more than 65 hours per week exclusive of meal times Apart from those two exceptions, there is at the present time no legal limitation of the hours of shop assistants. The first Clause of the Bill provides for a legal 48-hour week and also for the repeal of Section 2 of the Shops Act of 1912, under which the legal limitation for young persons is still 74 hours per week, and for the repeal of Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Shops Act of 1913, under
which the 65 hours limitation for those employed in the refreshment trades obtains. I think the House will agree that in these enlightened days hours of that length, 74 and 65 exclusive of meals, are somewhat antediluvian and ought to be swept away. Clause 2 makes provision for necessary overtime owing to the difficulties of seasonal trades and so on, and the remainder of the Bill—the last Clause—is simply confined to definitions and details.
Another point which I would like to urge upon the House as a further reason in support of this Bill is the fact that it will remove one of the obstacles to the setting up of trade boards in the retail distributive trades. When the grocery and provision trade board was first set up a proposal was made from the employers' side that a 48-hour week should be made applicable to that trade under the existing trade board's legislation Subsequently, the employers' side of the grocery and provision trade board desired to amend that proposal with regard to a 48-hour working week on the ground that it would be much better to have a general 48-hour week by legislation applicable not merely to the grocery trade but to all the retail distributive trades. It would be much better to have a general 48-hour week on the Statute Book than to have it merely in the case of one trade through the machinery of the trade boards. In view of that, and in view of the fact that there is a large measure of agreement among the most enlightened employers in the trade as well as amongst the workers, I urge upon the House the necessity of giving favourable consideration to this Bill.
It cannot be argued that this is a case where a legal 48-hours week is likely to have an adverse effect upon industry, because this concerns a purely domestic operation in which we have no foreign competition to fear. I suggest to the House that those employers in the distributive trades, and the co-operative societies, who have already by agreement put into operation a 48-hours working week, and in some cases a 44-hours working week, are entitled to some protection against the unscrupulous competition of firms who at the present time can work their assistants any length of time. It is common knowledge to people who know anything of the retail distributive trades
that shop assistants are kept working when the shop has been closed against the entry of customers. The fact that the shop is closed does not necessarily mean that the shop assistant's hours of labour are ended. Some of the more unscrupulous firms break down every attempt at general agreement to secure earlier closing. They try to get an undue advantage over their competitors. The result is that the existing early closing machinery breaks down, and hundreds of people in the town may be compelled to work longer hours, because there happens to be one greedy individual who seeks a selfish advantage over his competitors.
We hope to remove that by this Bill, and we trust that in view of the general agreement as to the position in regard to the existing Shop Acts legislation, the House will allow this Bill to go forward, will amend its weak spots later and give the shop workers of this country the consideration to which they are entitled.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Motion?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes; I oppose this Bill because it begins at the wrong end. Some time ago, I brought a Bill into this House to restrict the hours of shops, and I suggested that while giving absolute liberty to the shop-owner whilst he was working behind his own counter, the hours of labour of the shop assistant should be limited. I am pleased to hear the proposal that is made in this Bill, but it does not carry the necessary corollary that the man who is working on his own account by himself, or with members of his own family, should be as free as air, and should have no restrictions placed upon him. So long as the man employs himself he cannot exploit himself. He may exploit other labour. That has always been admitted, and that is why regulations have been made. Unless the Shops Acts are amended so that the individual shopkeeper shall have absolute freedom to keep open to what hours he likes, they are wrong and unfair.
If the hon. Member's Bill were carried and my proposal were carried at the same time, providing that the individual shopkeeper would be perfectly free to keep
open, there would be tens of thousands of small shop-keepers instead of the big combines, and the cost of living would be reduced enormously. The small shopkeeper is content with a humble living, and he will take that small and humble living in exchange for the unspeakable benefit of being a free man and knowing no master. If my hon. Friend will agree to bring into his Bill a Clause such as I suggest, that the individual shop-keeper should have absolute freedom and should be free from the trammels and restrictions of the Shop Hours Acts so long as he does not exploit his assistants by making them work longer than 44 hours or 48 hours, I will give the Bill every possible assistance, but I shall oppose it if it is merely going to limit the working hours of shop assistants to 44 or 48 hours, and to increase the cost of living and the inconvenience to the public.
When the working man goes home in the evening, he does not like to have the shop door shut in his face. He likes to go out with his wife and to make bargains with her at the shops, or to stay at home to mind the family while she goes out to shop. It is not right that the shop should be shut in her face, just as though the shops were not for the public, but were simply for the benefit of the shop-keeper. That is the fault of this sort of legislation. It would seem that people live merely for the purpose of making money instead of serving their fellows. I want to give freedom to individuals, so that they shall be free from restrictions and free from legislation, provided they are not unjustly exploiting their 6hop assistants. If the hon. Member will undertake to put my Clause into his Bill, I will withdraw my opposition.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Taylor, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Riley, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Wilfrid Paling, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Spencer, and Mr. Mackinder.

SHOPS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL,

"to amend the Shops Acts, 1912 and 1913," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th March, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to persons carrying on business as moneylenders." [Moneylenders Bill [Lords.]

MONEYLENDERS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
2. "That, in the case of the Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with: That the Bill be permitted to proceed.
3. That, in the case of the Bank of England (Nationalisation) Bill, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

REPORT [1ST MARCH].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [4th March] on further Consideration of Eighth Resolution,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others for administration under the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid.
Which Amendment was to leave out "£10," and insert instead thereof "£5."—[Mr. Lansbury.]

Question again proposed, "That '£10' stand part of the Resolution."

Mr. KELLY: When this Vote stood adjourned, I had one or two points still to put before the Minister. I wanted to ask the Minister how many people he was paying out of this Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of going round the country in order to drive people from the receipt of unemployment benefit. When he tells us how many people are engaged in that way, would he also give some idea where these men gained their experience and knowledge of commerce and industry which warrants them in saying that people could find employment if only they were looking for it in some way which appeals to members of the committees? On what basis and standard did the Minister arrive at his figure of 10s. per week as being adequate to maintain a British citizen at the present time? How can he justify the decision that, providing 13s. per head is coming into the house, that household is not only able to maintain itself but have a margin which enables it to keep one member of the family who happens to be unemployed? I have dealt with, standards of living in connection with
wages questions, and I have never heard even the worst employer in this country say that a 13s. per week standard is adequate to maintain anyone to-day.
How much of this Supplementary Estimate is being expended on the juvenile section of the population? We have something like 300,000 children leaving the schools each year and endeavouring to enter the industrial and commercial life of the country. Up to the present very little has been done, despite the efforts of many men and women who have tried to assist the Ministry in the work of securing adequate places, with a prospect of reasonable employment when the children grow to adult age. How much of the Estimate, if any, is being expended in looking after the juvenile section of the population and seeing them properly placed in industry?
Are any of the officers who are dealt with under this Supplementary Estimate engaged in placing labour in the sugar-beet factories? If so, under what Statute or Regulation has the Minister acted in refusing to send land workers to obtain employment in the sugar beet factories? It is evident that the Minister of Labour has agreed with somebody, with whom we do not know, that land workers must remain land workers, on their sweated wage, and not be given an opportunity of employment at rates higher than those paid to agricultural workers. It is a sad commentary on the Employment Exchanges that they have become parties to keeping wages down and to preventing people from obtaining employment at the rates of pay which operate in the sugar beet factories. I hope that if the Minister has agreed to any such course, he will speedily take steps to allow the people employed in the neighbourhood of sugar beet factories to obtain work in them rather than be forced to remain at the 28s. per week rate of wages, such as obtains in Norfolk and Suffolk. How far has the Minister been responsible for these happenings? If he is responsible, I hope he will be so ashamed of the work performed by his Department that he will put an end to this prohibition on agricultural labourers obtaining employment at more than 28s. per week.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It will be the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House to express regret at the
reason for the absence of the Minister of Labour. We are very sorry from the point of view of his own personal inconvenience and suffering, and we hope that he will speedily be restored to the service of the House. We are also very sorry at his absence because he will not be here to answer the very severe indictment which was made in the Debate by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). We hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply in detail to the points which my hon. Friend made.
We find an explanation in section "A" of this Vote that the increase of £230,000 asked for for salaries, wages and allowances, is for additional staff required by the greater volume of unemployment as compared with the original Estimate. It is a curious commentary on the statement of the Government that there has been a decrease in unemployment, to find that we are now faced with a Vote for another £220,000 for the staff to deal with the increased volume of unemployment. In that connection I should like to ask what are the Government really doing to prevent such a volume of unemployment as necessitates their coming to this House for a Vote of this character? I want to say to the Government that, as far as our information goes, and also as far as the information given us by the Government indicates, they are not doing anything really to reduce the volume of unemployment. Their policy has, in fact, in many cases already increased the amount of unemployment in this country. Take their attitude with regard to unemployment relief grants. We have a peculiar example of that in the City of Sheffield, which I represent—a necessitous area, if ever there was one. We have had to rely a good deal for finding work on relief schemes, with the aid of the grants we got from the Unemployment Relief Grants Committee. What is the position there? The Chairman of the Sheffield Finance Committee said recently:
The effect of the circular will virtually be to stop all unemployment schemes, and consequently the burden of unemployment will fall to a still greater extent upon the Poor Law guardians. Not only has a Sheffield application to spend £50,000 on street and sewerage works on the Manor Housing Estate been refused, but a further scheme to spend £75,000 on similar work will not be eligible and there are schemes including bridges and sewers which will have to be
stopped. These schemes were to have gone forward this winter, and we cannot afford to proceed with them without Government assistance.
Instead of helping to reduce the volume of unemployment the Government, by their policy, are actually increasing it, and we must expect still further applications by the Ministry for increased Estimates for the staff necessary to deal with the volume of unemployment. During the last General Election we heard a great deal from Conservative platforms about "work, not doles"; but, apparently, the policy of the Government is neither work nor doles. I should like to say a word about the effect of the Government's policy on unemployment insurance schemes. Sufficient attention has not yet been drawn to the admissions made by the Minister of Labour himself in this House as to the effect of the 1925 Act, which he introduced. On 16th December he said that for the quarter ending 16th November, 1925, 175,396 applications for extended benefit were disallowed, and only 74,558 of these had continued to register. It means that out of the 175,000 applications, 101,000 had actually ceased to register. That is a conclusive answer to the statement and the figures issued by the Ministry of Labour indicating a reduction in the volume of unemployment.
Moreover, this throwing of people off the register is being made still worse by the subsequent policy of the Government. I have in my hand Circular L.E.C. 82, Sub 21, with, which I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is perfectly familiar. It is a circular which deals with the limitation of the grant of extended benefit in the case of certain classes of applicants. I am not sure that it is available to Members of the House. It may be that there is a single copy in the Library, but most Members of the House have not seen it at all. It lays down a new instruction for the guidance of local unemployment committees in dealing with applications. This is what this circular says:
A recommendation to allow benefit would ordinarily be approved where the average incomings per head of a household are 10s. per week or less; where the incomings per head per week are betwen 10s. and 13s. a claim would normally be allowed, but closer scrutiny would be necessary as the incomings approach 13s.
I do not know what that means in print, but I know how it works out in practice by an unemployment committee.
Where the incomings per head per week are over 13s., the claim could not properly be allowed in the absence of quite exceptional circumstances.
What are the "exceptional circumstances' which will allow a local committee to exercise discretion under a circular like that? The hon. Member will be quite familiar with the case I put to him from Sheffield. It is the case of a young man, not 18 years of age, or 19, or 20, but a man who has served his country in the trenches, and is nearly 27 years of age. He has worked since his discharge for regular periods. It is true his employment has been intermittent, and consequently he may not have the requisite number of stamps to entitle him to standard benefit, but because his father and mother are getting between them about 54s. or 55s. per week, they are, by the policy of the Government, called upon to keep this young man, who has served his country and who has worked regularly when work has been available, or he must go to the Poor Law. And what happens? If he says he will not continue to be a drag upon his parents, and is forced by a hard-hearted and callous Government—that is the only way to describe them—to go to the Poor Law guardians and ask for relief, the answer is, "You are a single young man, and there is nothing to be done for you unless you go into the workhouse." That is the result of the policy of the Government in this matter.
There is a further point on which the Parliamentary Secretary promised a reply at Question Time to-day, and which was referred to in the last Debate by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I should like to emphasise the figures. I understand from a letter sent to my hon. Friend on the 2nd March, that during the three months ending 26th January, 1,170 applications were made by women for standard benefit and 232 were disallowed as not genuinely seeking work. Out of these 232, 142 of the disallowances operated from the date of the application. Without beating about the bush I think we should have a straight answer from the Government as to whether, having by Statute compelled these young women to pay their insurance contributions, they are or are not entitled to standard benefit from the date they register the fact that
they are unemployed. It is a matter of complete inequity to call this an insurance scheme when persons who have been in work and have the stamps requisite make application for benefit are refused on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work. If they have paid for the benefit you have no opportunity of testing whether they are or are not seeking employment.
I want also to refer to the result of the Government's policy in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme upon local authorities generally. I am not at all sure that the country as a whole has realised what the effect is upon the local ratepayer. When they do the Government will hear more about it than they will to-day. I have actual figures from Sheffield which I can submit to the Parliamentary Secretary. Ever since the beginning of the Government's policy, outlined in the Circular of February, 1925, there has been in the city of Sheffield a continuous increase week after week in the charge upon the Poor Law, not for general Poor Law purposes but for the direct relief of the unemployed who have been turned away from the Employment Exchanges. The cases I am going to put are not general Poor Law cases; all of them refer to people who are unemployed and denied benefit. On 21st February, 1925, a week before the issue of the Circular, the Poor Law cases of unemployed persons numbered 3,951, and the cost to the Poor Law that week was £2,615. By November, 1925, the number of cases had increased to 4,412, and the cost per week to £3,869. By 20th February, this year, the cases had increased to 5,215 and the cost to £4,543 per week.
That is an amazing position. We had an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to the Debate on the question of necessitous areas. This Government are not only doing nothing to help necessitous areas, they are actually making the burden worse every week. By the Act of 1924, under which insured persons were treated as human beings, we saved the local rates in Sheffield £70,000 in one year. But the Government, by the policy they are adopting, are not only wiping out the whole of the benefits conferred on necessitous areas by that Act but actually increasing the cost to necessitous areas;
in the case of Sheffield by nearly 30 per cent. That is a position which I am perfectly certain the Government cannot logically defend; at any rate, I shall be very interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about it this afternoon.
The White Paper which has been issued during the last few days gives a startling confirmation of what I have said, not from the Sheffield point of view, but from the point of view of the whole country. I find that during the whole period of 1925 there has been a continuous and startling increase in the number of persons relieved under the Poor Law. I will not quote the whole of the figures in this White Paper, only those who are described as receiving domiciliary relief There is an increase for England and Wales—this is "a statement showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales in the quarter ending in December, 1925, with some particulars as to the number of unemployed persons in receipt of such relief." The increase in the number of persons in England and Wales in receipt of domiciliary relief in 1925 was 246,710. Practically the whole of that was due to the policy of the Government in throwing men and women and young persons off the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We would like to have some justification from the Minister for such a maladministration of the Unemployment Insurance scheme, and the maladministration of justice to the people of this country.
There is one other point of criticism. The Government have instituted one or two training centres to deal with unemployment. But somehow or other, unless I misread a Circular which I have before me, they seem to be following an evil genius and always to do the wrong thing. The Circular is T.F.M.4. I quote that identification so that it may be recognised by the Parliamentary Secretary. It sets out a scheme of training. The second paragraph deals with conditions of eligibility, and: the very first of the conditions is as follows:
Applicants must be registered as unemployed and in receipt of unemployment benefit.
Therefore, the whole of the people who have been grossly and unjustly thrown off from benefit for unemployment
insurance are to be denied any training at all in the centres which are established. That is a most extraordinary position for the Government to take up with a view to reducing the volume of unemployment. The Minister should know that the persons who have been most liable to long periods of unemployment, and who have come most severely under the harrow of this wicked Government, are the very people who most need training. The Government ought to have made provision for them in this Circular.
There is one other point of criticism on that matter, and it relates to the disposition of the centres of training. We have pleaded again and again that necessitous areas should have some consideration. What has happened? So far as I can gather from answers to questions in the House, there are three centres, one at Wallsend, one at Birmingham, and a third at Claydon. We pleaded for a centre for Sheffield. There we have well over 20,000 people upon the Unemployment Insurance register. It is a place where there is plenty of opportunity for training men in skilled or semiskilled occupations. As far as I can gather, the unemployed of Sheffield are being sent to the centre at Claydon, near Ipswich, and, if my information is correct, the training there is confined almost entirely to agricultural training. I will be glad to receive further information on the subject, for we have had very scanty information hitherto; we seem to have to drag the information bit by bit from the Minister. My information is that the larger part of the training at Claydon is agricultural. The Government send men right away from Sheffield to Ipswich for training. In one or two of the great centres like Sheffield, where you have a very large volume of unemployment which is likely to continue, the Government should arrange their training centres. For these and for many other reasons which I intended to state and which I do not mention because I do not want to take up too much time, I very cordially support the Amendment, and I hope that we shall get a satisfactory answer from the Minister.

Mr. HAYDAY: I want to add my word of regret at the absence of the Minister of Labour and at its cause. In common with my right hon. Friend, I
hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have a speedy recovery. In connection with the Vote now under review, I note that there is an item referring to a Grant-in-Aid to the International Labour Office. To what extent the Labour Ministry is getting results for the expenditure, and endeavouring to carry out the Labour conventions, I am at a loss to know. Certainly they have hung fire for a considerable time.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member has been misled, as often happens, by the heading of the Vote. The heading to a Supplementary Estimate must always be the same as the heading to the main Estimate. If the hon. Member looks at the items, he will find that no money is voted for the International Labour Office, and it does not come under review on this occasion.

Mr. HAYDAY: I am obliged. The heading states "also expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations) including a Grant-in-Aid."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a very common mistake. The heading to this Supplementary Estimate must be the same as that of the main Estimate. Hon. Members should look at the items in the Estimate.

Mr. HAYDAY: I will pass on to offer a few severe criticisms of the administration of the Labour Ministry. I would reinforce the arguments used on Thursday last by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) in relation to that class of case which has become so common, namely, the disqualification of applicants for standard benefit almost before they have qualified for same by putting in their waiting period. From the very moment of the book being lodged, without any rhyme or reason, an inquisition is commenced, and before the week of the waiting period is up the applicant attends before a committee and the old plea is put forth, "You do not satisfy us that you are genuinely seeking employment." Cruel fate indeed it is that throws a person out of employment. It is a crueller fate when no employment is available to re-absorb that individual. Yet with complete local knowledge that the trade from which the applicant has come has almost closed down its opera-
tions for a long period, it is expected in the large towns and cities that the individual applicant will undertake a heart-breaking trudge round the city interviewing separate employers who could not, or who would not if they could, take the applicant into employment because of the vast difference between the industry from which he came and the industry which he seeks to enter. It would be much fairer and cleaner if the Ministry officials would take the word of the employer that the person has been "stood off" because of slackness, that in the trades there are common periods of idleness according to the season or month of the year, and that there is no similar trade in the locality.
Why should an applicant be sent trudging five, six or 10 miles every day, interviewing all kinds of employers? It is encouraging the very thing that the Ministry try by their inspectorate to destroy—encouraging applicants to go to friendly employers and to get notes from them that they have called and that no work was available. I have known of cases where a list of interviews with between 20 and 26 employers in one week has been shown, but that did not satisfy the committee as representing a genuine effort to seek employment. The last speaker knows full well what I am about to say. If a blast furnace closes down in an area, the whole of the men are thrown idle. The fires are damped down. There is no other similar class of employment to which the persons can go. Why, in a case like that, cannot the word of the employer be taken? Surely the Ministry can trust the word of the employer just as it ought to trust the word of the applicant? I can see no justification in the Act for disqualifying a person on the very day that he should be entering into standard benefit. What I have described is the only loop-hole that the administration has. The committee at once fastens on to it, and then in a more or less callous way, whether acting on instructions or not, with a desire to misrepresent the gravity of the unemployment problem in this country, the course described is taken, and the country is given a false idea of the actual state of affairs.
The administration is somewhat remiss also in settling refunds. I have in my hand a list from Bradford showing that
for a considerable time past applications for a refund under the Act have not been met. For instance, the Bradford City Council applied for exemption from the operations of the Act for a large number of its employés. They had paid contributions for a considerable period before the request was made. The request was granted, and then some of the men concerned received a communication such as I have in my hand. It reviewed the whole position, set off against the men a certain number of stamps which were paid as from November, 1922, to January, 1924, cut down the amount, and actually put on the debit side the amount of £1 7s. There must be something very loose in administration of that sort. I hold here a list of the names of men who have not yet received their refunds, and in looking through the communications I am led to believe that these applications must have been made not less than 12 months ago. Certainly they are a class of case that does not come within the limiting period for the claiming of refunds.
5.0 P.M.
Let me put one other serious aspect of the Ministry's administration. There is a large number of men in receipt of a certain percentage of disability pension. I would like to know at what stage or on what basis the Department is depriving of extended benefit, ex-service men who are in receipt of pensions. Ex-service men complain to me that recently there has been a tightening-up of the system and a searching into their circumstances. If they are in receipt of from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. disability pension they are told they cannot be looked upon as likely to be absorbed in general industry, and this excuse is used to disqualify them from extended benefit. That is a serious handicap to place on men concerning whom there were not sufficient words in the dictionary of the English language to sound the praises of their sacrifices and their work during the awful period of the War. We should remember that the partially disabled ex-service man is not like the ordinary unemployed person with his full physical capacities at his disposal, liable to be absorbed in industry. That being the case, you put the ex-service man in the position of being between the Devil and the deep sea. He cannot be absorbed into
employment; he can be refused extended benefit because he is not likely to be absorbed into employment, and thus he must go to the board of guardians because his pension is not sufficient to enable him to live. On what basis does the Ministry proceed in cases of that sort? I would like the Ministry to consider this matter seriously and perhaps on some other occasion the whole question may be gone into, because it is a matter which also involves the Ministry of Pensions. I ask whether the time has not arrived when these pensions should be made sufficient?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. HAYDAY: I was calling attention to the position of the ex-service man in receipt of a percentage disability pension. I urge that we should have a clear and explicit statement as to the actual position of these men at the moment. I hope that upon some other occasion when, perhaps, it will be more in order to deal with the matter, proposals will be made whereby these men shall no longer be in this anomalous position between outdoor relief and unemployment benefit. If their pensions are not sufficient, those pensions ought to be made sufficient and these men ought to be freed from the anxiety of this phase of our unfortunate economic position. I have a still more serious matter to which I wish to draw attention. Until recently, all seamen—whether able seamen, firemen, cooks or stewards—were liable for insurance. During the present yachting season at Cowes there has been created a most exasperating condition of affairs in this connection, for which I can find no justification in the Act. I can only imagine that some outside person has made a test and that the administration of the Employment Exchange have taken powers which they ought not to have taken. It appears that, at the moment, cooks and stewards on yachts are being disallowed both standard and extended benefit. It may sound peculiar to the House that these men should be denied standard benefit, because it is to be supposed that they have the stamps qualification which entitles them to that benefit, but the Minister will find, notwithstanding the fact that these employés have stamps on their cards, the
mere circumstances that they are employed as cooks or stewards on pleasure yachts is taken as placing them in an uninsurable industry, according to the point of view of the Employment Exchange, and they are, therefore, denied the benefit of their previous stamps.
I am led to believe that this practice has been brought about by the Department's own ruling and that in one case an application was made by Captain Herbert of the steam yacht "Restless," owned and commissioned by Lord Tredegar. The application was that cooks or stewards serving on the yacht should be regarded as domestics and therefore not in an insurable occupation, and that view was acquiesced in by the Department. As a result these men were disallowed benefit, without any inquiry being made by the Department as to whether this was their normal work or whether it was only undertaken by them as a temporary occupation, in consequence of unemployment in their ordinary occupation. Complaints generally have been made regarding all those who become disqualified on the general ground of being in domestic service, but I think particular attention should be given to the case of the men in a yachting centre, who ordinarily follow an insurable occupation, but who, rather than remain unemployed and drawing unemployment benefit, seek employment on the pleasure yachts which during the season are frequently in and out of ports in the South of England. It is a serious matter if in the case of these men their temporary occupation is to be used to disqualify them and to make inoperative their previous contributions. It may be thought clever to do so, but I do not think it decent that such tactics should be adopted.
Up to this time all yacht owners and masters have seen to it that unemployment books were taken out for all members of their crews without exception, but since this application has been acceded to naturally they all see a possibility of saving on their running costs and expenses and are availing themselves of this opportunity. Previously, if sufficient stamps were on a man's card he was entitled to benefit. Now we see a different state of things. If it is to be asserted that cooks and stewards are domestics, what of the able seamen, the stokers and the
greasers? These yachts are not engaged in business; they are pleasure yachts and the stoker and the able seaman is ministering to the comfort and pleasure of the owner, as much as the cook or the steward. They are all employed on a pleasure cruise and you can no more term the cook or the steward a domestic, than you can the able seaman who cleans the decks, the greaser who oils the machinery in the engine room or the stoker who fires the furnaces and supplies the impetus for the yacht to travel into those pleasant regions which are conducive to the benefit and rest of the yachting party.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us something definite on this point. I think the Minister should undertake a serious investigation of this matter. I accept as authoritative the information which I have here and we will be able to prove that men of the class I have indicated with 30 stamps on their cards have been refused unemployment benefit and have been forced to seek Poor Law relief—though the stamps to their credit would have counted in respect of any other occupation. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates the gravity of the point. If you are to include in the wide term "domestic service," men who, up to recently, were admitted by the administration to be part of the seafaring community, it is a very serious matter. Are these men to be disqualified because they serve in these capacities on a pleasure boat owned by a noble lord, a peer of the realm perhaps, who can take his pleasure—probably by reason of sweated wages and unemployment among his own employés. The name of Lord Tredegar sounds very familiar to me in connection with the coal industry and royalties. Are the Employment Exchanges to say to the yacht owner, "We agree with you. Your pleasure should not cost you any more by having charged up against you the stamps which are the only protection of these men, and when you have had your pleasure, they can be thrown back again on the unemployment market without any benefit."? Can the hon. Gentleman see his way to make an arrangement by which the rights of such men will be continued? If their normal occupation for six or seven months of the year Is not that of ministering to the pleasure of yacht owners, then let the yacht owners help to
keep these men in the benefit to which they are entitled. This is a new decision. I do not know that there has been an Umpire's decision on the matter, but I am told it is a Departmental decision. I shall be pleased to be disabused, but I certainly want to know the extent of this iniquitous imposition upon a body of men who otherwise should be entitled to benefit when out of work.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Before I deal with the points raised the other day and to-day, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), who has just sat down, for their kindly references to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. He had fully intended to be present to-day and to answer the points raised in the Debate, but, for reasons with which the House is well aware and with which, I think, they will sympathise in every part of the House, he cannot be here. I will deal at once with the last point which was raised by the hon. Member for West Nottingham, namely, the position of persons employed on yachts and ships in regard to unemployment insurance. The question that he raised is one of extraordinary difficulty, and it was brought to my personal notice for the first time a few weeks ago. I realised at once that it was a very difficult question, owing to the service and the nature of the contract of service, because, of course, it is not limited to hands on board a yacht of the size of that owned by Lord Tredegar, but applies equally to small yachts that perhaps ship only two or three hands. I confess, quite frankly, that some of the doubts which the hon. Member expressed to-day passed through my mind when I had to consider the question, and so I took a course which I think was the right course under the circumstances, and for which the Act provides, namely, the course of seeking to get a decision of the High Court Judge appointed for the purpose under, I think, the Act of 1920—at any rate, under one of the Insurance Acts—to whom we can send for his judicial decision, "Aye" or "No," the question: Does a certain class of person come within the scope of the Act at all? That is as the position stands now, and as soon
as we can, we shall get that decision, and I will, of course, let the hon. Member know what it is.

Mr. HAYDAY: Did the point arise through an umpire's decision?

Mr. BETTERTON: No. It was through an hon. Member of this House, who is the owner of a small yacht, and who brought me the personal case of his own cook, I think.

Mr. HAYDAY: But where was the first decision arrived at to disqualify them? Was it a departmental decision?

Mr. BETTERTON: Of that I am not quite certain, but perhaps I shall be able to tell the hon. Member before I have finished. With regard to the Bradford case and refunds, to which he referred, as he will be aware this question of refunds under the last Act has been a very big business, involving many hundreds of thousands of claims. They are very quickly being dealt with, and, having regard to the magnitude of the task, I think it is not too much to claim, on behalf of the officials who have been responsible, that they have done their work expeditiously and well. With regard to the Bradford case, in which, for some reason, there appears to have been some delay, I am told that that also is in process of settlement, if it is not actually settled at this moment.
With regard to the question of the disabled men, it is very difficult to deal with that large and important question under the limited scope of to-day's Debate, but the point which the hon. Member made is shortly this: He said—and, I think, truly—that you may get men who are, say, 60 or 70 per cent. disabled, but who, owing to the difficulty of obtaining employment at all, are never really likely to get any work in the locality in which they live. That, as he also truly said, is a point partly involving the Ministry of Pensions—the case he made clearly involves the Ministry of Pensions—but I can assure him, as I said in answer to a supplementary question to-day, that that aspect of this very difficult case is at present being considered by my right hon. Friend, because in considering his powers and what he can do he is bound, as the hon. Member for West Nottingham knows as well as anybody in the House, by the statutory conditions contained in the Act of 1924. I can, however, assure the
hon. Member that both my right hon. Friend and I are doing what we can to see if some more satisfactory arrangement cannot be made.
I have just got the answer to the point put in regard to the men employed on yachts, and I am told that there has been no formal decision so far, but that the Department, in view of other decisions by the High Court, have had to proceed on the assumption that the work is not insurable.

Mr. HAYDAY: May we take it from that that no applicant in those circumstances has been disqualified from benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: We have had to proceed on the assumption that the work is not insurable, but that is the very point which, as I say, is going to the Judge of the High Court for decision.

Mr. HAYDAY: But in the meantime no payments are made?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think that is so. As the hon. Member knows, this point was only raised this afternoon, and if there is anything that I have said which I can amplify when I have gone into it outside, I shall be only too glad to give the hon. Member all the information in my power.
I will now come to one or two points which were common I think to all the speeches which were made the other day and which have been made today. The hon. Member for Hillsborough raised a question in regard to Circular L.E.C. 82/21, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) raised it the other day. They suggested that the decision which the Minister has come to and the limitations referred to in this Circular are harsh, and they, therefore, urge that the Circular ought to be withdrawn. But I want the House to consider this: the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), with his long experience of local work in connection with the relief of distress, has emphasised as clearly as anybody in this House—and I entirely agree with him—that there is nothing more demoralising, particularly for the younger men, than, as I think he put it, that they should get something for nothing. The Minister, therefore, has to draw what I may call a fair dividing line between the view which was expressed by the hon. Member
for Hillsborough and the view so well expressed by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.

Mr. LANSBURY: But we are really complaining that you are putting the cost of keeping a young man on to his parents. You are not redeeming the evil of which I complain a bit; all that you are doing is to shift it and to lower the standard of life of the whole family.

Mr. BETTERTON: I quite appreciate that point, but I think I can make my point clear. With regard to this Circular, there are two overriding considerations, neither of which has been mentioned to-day. One is that the Committee has a discretion, in cases where it considers the refusal of benefit would entail hardship, to increase the amount, and, in the second place, the figures mentioned in this Circular are exclusive of and do not include rent. If you take, therefore, on the lowest scale mentioned here, the case of a man and wife and three children, they would get 50s. a week, plus rent, on the lowest scale. They might, of course, get more—up to between 10s. and 13s. per head would normally be allowed—but that is the minimum referred to. If you compare that rate, as you are bound to do, with the scale which is prevailing in many of the large towns and municipalities in the country, if you compare it with the wages that are paid by some of the principal authorities in Great Britain, I think the House will probably agree that the line which my right hon. Friend has drawn is not an unfair one. I am not discussing for this purpose whether the rates here referred to are sufficient or insufficient, whether they are accurate or inaccurate, but I am simply stating what the figures are. A general yard labourer, for instance, employed by Cardiff gets 56s. 9½d., Glasgow 55s., Hull 52s., Leeds 48s. 11½d., Manchester 53s., Bristol 60s., and London 62s.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do those figures apply to young men who have paid and have enough stamps on their cards for standard benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: This is extended benefit.

Mr. LANSBURY: But you are applying it to standard benefit. I have cases where you are doing that.

Mr. BETTERTON: That is the other point to which I am coming in a moment. If you take this scale, in answering the charge that this Circular is harsh and that the amount is much too low, unless you are to encourage the very thing which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley wishes us not to do, you will see that these rates are not unfair rates, but bear a fair relation to the rates actually prevailing in the country.

Mr. SCURR: What does the young fellow get?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is referred to in the Circular, which says that recommendations to allow benefit would ordinarily be approved where the average earnings per head of a household are 10s. per week. Therefore, I was taking the case of a normal family of five, where it would work out at 50s. minimum.

Mr. LANSBURY: You would not like to live on it!

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member for Rochdale raised a number of questions when this matter was last discussed with regard to a subject in which he has taken as active a part as anyone in this House, I mean the question affecting juvenile employment. The hon. Member is Deputy-Chairman of the London Advisory Council, and I am sorry he is not in his place, because I should like to take the opportunity of saying that we appreciate, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) appreciates, what he has done for a very long time in this connection. He said the other day:
Does the same difficulty still exist between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education with regard to the placing of these juveniles? It is a saddening spectacle to find a quarrel going on between the two Departments.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1926; col. 1724, Vol. 192.]
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is this: Prior to 1921, I think it was, and, indeed, long before, there were differences of opinion between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education, and the then President of the Board of Education, Mr. Fisher, and the then Minister of Labour, Dr. Macnamara, did not see at all eye to eye in this matter. Mr. Fisher, for instance, thought that all the juvenile unemployment work should rest with the local education authority.
To that Dr. Macnamara was opposed, and the matter was referred to Lord Chelmsford by way of arbitration, and his report was adopted, under which the local education authority were given power to take over all juvenile work, including insurance, if they chose to exercise it. That has not altogether eliminated the difficulties to which the right hon. Member for Preston referred. In consequence, my right hon. Friend has recently referred this matter to a committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Malcolm, one of the terms of reference being to inquire
with particular reference to the adequacy of the arrangements for enabling young persons to enter and retain suitable employment.
Therefore, it would seem, I think, in answer to the hon. Member for Rochdale, that my right hon. Friend is making every effort he can, and he hopes for this purpose to get the assistance of this Committee in disposing of any outstanding differences which may exist between the various Departments.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is that the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Education?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not sure, but I think it was a joint appointment by my right hon. Friend and the President of the Board of Education The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred the other day to the question of women employed at the Exchanges, and what he said, if I might summarise it quite shortly, was this: "Here you are turning off experienced women who have done you good service and good service for the Department, and you are putting in their place young trainees who happen to have passed some examination." With regard to that point, I might say that the policy, not only of the Ministry of Labour, speaking broadly, but, I think, of all other Ministries, is that permanent work should be done by permanent officials, but in a Ministry like the Ministry of Labour, where we have to deal with unemployment which is abnormal, and where a temporary staff is necessary, then, of course, we must have a number of persons who are temporary. Of these women, there are at present about 246 with from five to 10 years' experience, and during the last six years we have held 11 qualifying examinations, each woman having at least one chance
But my right hon. Friend authorises me to say that, as the need for discharges arises, every possible consideration will be given to those women who have not qualified at these examinations, but who have given efficient service to the Department, in some cases over a period of years.

Mr. PALING: That still means that these women cannot be permanent servants unless they have passed the qualifying examination?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, that is so. The hon. Member for Don Valley raised another point, which, I think, was raised by one other Member in the Debate the other night. He said the Estimate showed that we want £230,000 more for salaries and wages, and another contribution to the Unemployment Fund of £450,000. He said these two claims are, on the face of it, inconsistent, and he wants to know the reason. With regard to the £230,000 which is needed for the salaries and wages of further clerical staff, that is caused, as I said the other day, because we budgeted last year for an average of 1,100,000, and, in fact, the number exceeded 1,200,000, and, therefore, we want more staff. With regard to the second point, although the numbers of unemployed were more than was anticipated, there was a large increase of insured persons, and, of course, the more that is contributed by employers and employed, the more the State has to contribute. But it is also due to the fact that there was a very considerable increase in the number of persons working short time, who, therefore, come under both heads, because they not only draw benefit, but they also pay contributions.
I think I have dealt with the points raised by every hon. Member except those raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. He wanted to know how this estimated saving in the training of ex-service men was effected. He mentioned the sum of £439,000. I know it was a slip on his part, and I do not make any point of it, but, as a fact, as will be seen, the estimated amount saved on training is £395,000. He wanted to know why there is this large saving. The reason is that fewer men are in training than was anticipated, but when it is suggested that this is owing to some policy
of economising at the cost of disabled men, I can assure the House there is no foundation whatever for that statement, because the conditions with regard to those men are precisely the same now as they were then.

Mr. MARCH: Are we to take it from that, that there are no disabled men desirous of going into training?

Mr. BETTERTON: No man who desires training and is eligible for it has been refused.

Mr. MARCH: What is the eligibility?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is not a new rule; it has been in existence for the last four or five years. The two conditions to which I was referring are, first, that he has to give reasons why he did not apply for training before, because, in theory, the scheme stopped as long ago as 1921. The second condition is, that he has to show he is not capable of following either his pre-War or his post-War occupation. One of the reasons there are fewer men in training is that many of the men for whom we budgeted a year ago were undergoing treatment, and a larger proportion of those than we anticipated did not need or desire any training at all. These different reasons will account for the smaller number who have taken advantage of the training which we are prepared to give them.

Mr. HARRIS: Are there many vacant training places?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think not. There is a waiting list of men.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why close up places, as at Cathcart, when you have a waiting list?

Mr. BETTERTON: Cathcart is an old story, and I think I am right in saying we took men from Cathcart and other places which we closed, and sent them to other centres.

Mr. BECKETT: If you took the men from Glasgow to Nottingham, it meant that Nottingham men could not get entrance.

Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think that point is a substantial one, because the waiting list is not large, and I think there will be no difficulty in getting these men absorbed soon. There was another point
raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley the other day, when he said:
I believe that this scheme broke down mainly because the Government and those responsible since the War have never been generous enough to find sufficient money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1926; col. 1706, Vol. 192.]
I think it only right, as that statement has been made, that the House should he in possession of the amount that has been spent and the number of persons who have been trained. Since August, 1919, the number of men who have been trained is 97,000. In addition, there are at this moment 2,300 still in training. The total cost up to the end of the present financial year borne on the Ministry of Labour Votes, excluding administration and excluding all expenditure by the Pensions and other Government Departments, is over £20,000,000. In addition, nearly 1,500 persons have been given grants after training to set up on their own account, and about 2,400 men have been given grants in lieu of training. The greater part of the expenditure has been on allowances to trainees. These have been on a generous scale. The minimum to a single man without dependants is 40s. a week. In addition there are allowances to wives and children, travelling allowances, living away from home allowances, etc. The average weekly allowance is about 62s. Therefore let not the House suppose that either this, or the previous Government, or the Government before has not appreciated the situation. I think it is only right that hon. Members should know the actual facts.

Mr. LANSBURY: It depends upon the various circumstances!

Mr. BETTERTON: Oh, of course. The hon. Member also referred to the 40 per cent., but that was laid down not by the Ministry of Labour at all, but by the committee composed of representatives of the employers and the trade unions. These cases have been revised from time to time, and not infrequently extensions of not less than three months per man have been granted, but the condition of trade makes it difficult for these men to find employment. I thought it a useful opportunity, in view of the attack on this training to give these pretty full details. Another point was raised by the hon. Member. I will deal with the small
aspect of it first. It was an individual case to which he referred, the case where he said a good deal of correspondence took place. I have ascertained the facts of that case, and they are these. The woman was refused benefit because the employer did not stamp the woman's card. The woman in question was employed, or said to be employed, by a Madam Curnow. There was great difficulty found by the Ministry in deciding whether this woman was or was not an insured person.

Mr. LANSBURY: Why?

Mr. BETTERTON: It was a question of some doubt, therefore, whether this lady was or was not entitled to benefit. The case went to the Court of Referees and we asked on two grounds whether the woman was entitled to benefit. The grounds were those of "voluntarily leaving" her employment, and afterwards "not genuinely seeking work." The Court of Referees found in her favour. Therefore you have this: That if she was an insured person, as we now think, she was entitled to benefit when the contributions had been paid. Until they are paid we cannot do anything. Until the contributions are paid by the employer she is not entitled to benefit. When the money is recovered as I expect it will be from the employer then the benefit will be given if she is still on the spot.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but my complaint was that it took from December to March for his Department to discover that the woman was in the position that he has stated, and that they took no steps whatever when the woman applied and told them that the employer had not paid—the Department took no steps from December to collect the money.

Mr. BETTERTON: I agree. I say quite frankly that the case occupied a long time. It had to be decided whether this lady was liable for the contribution, or her employer. Be that as it may, it is the fact as I have gathered, that steps are being taken to recover the contributions of the employer and I hope we shall succeed in getting them. There is just one other point, for I must not detain the House longer.

Miss WILKINSON: When you have a case where the employed person has complied with the law and has been paying
her contributions all the time, and so far as she knows her card was being stamped, and she had no reason to suppose it was not—surely is it not for the Department to pay the woman and then recover from the employer?

Mr. BETTERTON: No contributions were paid by the woman.

Miss WILKINSON: I understood that they were.

Mr. BETTERTON: No, I understand not. No contributions have been paid either by the woman or by the employer; that is one of the difficulties of the case.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not the fact that the actual money was deducted from her wages?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think not. Nothing has been deducted from the wages of the woman from the beginning of this employment. She has not paid anything, which, of course, is the basis on which the case rests. I am glad I have had the opportunity of clearing up that point.
There is another outstanding material point that was put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and by every other speaker that has taken part in this Debate. It was this: When a man or a woman's card is stamped, and he or she leaves the employment, how can it be said at once that they are not genuinely seeking work? That is the point. The provision that a person must genuinely be seeking work is contained in the Act of 1924, and is a provision which really is a necessary part of any system of Unemployment Insurance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) knows this point. Really there is nothing inconsistent at all in a refusal to pay these grants immediately after the person ceases work. We know in many cases that there is no desire or intention to seek employment for a certain period. There is the case of special workers, special trades such as the fur trade, seasonable trades. We have many of them where, when their season comes to an end, they deliberately wait until the new season begins two months later, because they want to go back to their old jobs with their old
employers. During that period they are not genuinely or in any other way seeking work. They are waiting to go back to the old employment. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley made complaint against the officials at Mansell Street Exchange. When I communicated his complaint to my right hon. Friend he himself went down in order that he might see what the position was. The result of his visit there was that he found out about 12 persons named by the hon. Member in the question he asked a little while ago. They were offered work in a manner I shall describe through the instrumentality of our officers at the Exchange. Now that work was not so utterly different from the work they had been doing. It was in fact work in machining.

Mr. LANSBURY: What has that to do with my case?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have already explained the details. I thought I had explained that the Court of Referees, to whom this point went, found in these cases that they were not—except in one case out of 12—genuinely seeking work. Then, as I say, there was an offer of work in this other trade. Hon. Members, possibly, would like to know exactly what happened to these 12 women. Seven turned down the offer of alternative training in the tailoring trade without giving it a moment's consideration. The rate of wages was that fixed by the trades board. In some cases the wages are higher, but the particular trade in which they were offered this work is one of those under the Trade Boards Act, and the wages actually offered to these people at the time were higher than the minimum Trade Board's rate for the same work.

Miss WILKINSON: Surely the point is this: Quite honestly there are rates fixed under any trade board which may be higher than the rate in the ordinary insured trades. That would still leave the question of the wages paid to the new entrants. What were the rates paid?

6.0 P.M

Mr. BETTERTON: The employment was at the guaranteed rate of 30s. per week. It is above the Trade Board minimum. The other five women said they did not mind trying? Three out of the five, however, made it so clear that they were expecting almost at once to be called back by their own employers that it was useless offering to give them
training. The other two accepted it, and I think one—I am not sure whether it is one or two—is still at work. I give that as an illustration of what is common knowledge, that many of these women, and many men also, do not genuinely seek work, because they do not want it, for the reason that they want to go back to their old employers when the next season begins. I would add this further point, that this phrase—and the Section—inserted in the 1924 Act is one which it is not very easy to administer, and it is one about which from time to time we have a good deal of trouble; but the right hon. Gentleman for Preston (Mr. Shaw), who inserted it in his Act, no doubt had in mind the idea that there was machinery in previous Acts which would absolve the Minister from having to interpret the Section in such cases, and it provided for cases to be taken to the Court of Referees.
Another point to which I wish to refer was also raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, and it has been very often mentioned to me outside the House by hon. Members who hold the same views upon it as he has. At present the right of appeal from the Court of Referees to an Umpire is limited to cases where the Court of Referees gives permission—unless it is a case in which the applicant belongs to an association and applies through that association. It has been represented that that limitation ought not to exist. I think it is a great tribute to the confidence in which the Umpire is held—

Mr. BATEY: Do not believe that.

Mr. BETTERTON: I was wondering how soon the hon. Member would correct me; but I have had requests for an appeal in all oases to the Umpire, and I can only say that that is one of the matters which is being considered by the Blanesburgh Committee, and that we hope to get some guidance from it. I have taken much longer than I had intended in order to answer the various points raised, and in view of the fact that we have had discussions on two previous occasions I hope the House will shortly give us the Vote.

Mr. T. SHAW: I wish, as all my colleagues have already done, to express my
sympathy with the Minister of Labour, and, if I may, to express a hope that he will soon be in his place, as we want to see him not only recovered but very strong when the question of his salary comes up for discussion.

Mr. MARCH: Cut it off altogether.

Mr. SHAW: The hon. Member who has spoken for the Department has, I think, scarcely answered the questions, or dealt with the very important charges that have been made against the administration of his Department. One of the charges is that the system of administration has led not to finding work for the workless but to reducing the apparent list of unemployed by taking people off the list and putting them on to Poor Law relief. To that allegation the hon. Gentleman has not attempted to make any reply at all. From beginning to end of his speech he made no reference at all to one of the gravest charges that could be made against any Ministry, and we are left where we were. May I repeat, for the benefit of the House, one simple statement made by the Minister of Labour himself in answer to a question which proves definitely that the present figures of unemployment are absolutely unreliable? The Minister said that for the quarter ending 16th November, 1925, benefits had been disallowed in the case of 175,396 applicants, and only 74,558 of them continued to register. That means that more than 100,000 people disappeared from the register, but there is no proof that work was found for a single individual; so the figures as to unemployment are absolutely valueless. They do not represent the truth as to unemployment, nor even an approximation to the truth.
That is the gravamen of one of the charges we make—that the administration has been conducted in such a way that the country does not know what the extent of unemployment is. What we do know is that as, owing to these methods, this list of the unemployed declines, the list of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief increases. That is a charge which the Government ought to take seriously into consideration. From all over the country we have complaints that the administration is harsh, unjust, and altogether devoid of sympathy, and there has been no attempt to offer any defence to the charge. When the Minister asks
the House to pass an Estimate we have a right to ask him what his administration has been, and the House has a right to know whether it is or is not true that the administration has been tightened up, and whether the result has been what we allege it has been, a transfer of the burden from the unemployment fund to the local rates. If these things are not true, we are entitled to a statement showing that they are not true. It is quite evident, however, that these things are true. The very Circular of the Ministry itself shows exactly what the Ministry think working people ought to subsist on. Committees are told that when there is an income per head of the family of 10s. a week, excluding rent, benefit might be given; but when the income per head of the family gets between 10s. and 13s. a week, then it has to become a serious question for them; and, apparently, when the income is 13s., it becomes an absolute certainty that the committees ought to recommend the disallowance of benefit.
Take the maximum sum of 13s. per head per week. It is equal to 1s. 8½d. per head per day. If 1s. 8½d. per head per day is going into a family, benefits are to be refused—when benefits can be refused by any method under the Acts. I hope every hon. Member who votes for this in the House will be compelled to live on 1s. 8½d. a day for about six months. It would cure every hon. Member of any desire to issue circulars like this. The thing to me is so appallingly mean and so monstrous that I cannot speak of it without indignation. When we fall so low that we get to the point that Poor Law methods must be adopted if an income of 1s. 8½d. per head per day is going into a house, then I think this House has indeed fallen low, and the country has indeed fallen law. We are told to think of the cost. We ought to think of the fact that these people had definite promises made to them after the War, and to think of the fact that we can find nearly £1,000,000 a day for those who lent money, whereas of those who lent their blood and their sinew and risked their lives, hundreds of thousands are valued at 1s. 8½d. a day. If that amount of 1s. 8½d. per head per day is going into a family, then the boys and girls must be made spongers on their parents. I can imagine nothing worse the House could do—than consent to this kind of thing going on.
It is not small details that matter in this case. The point is, Are we going to accept responsibility for these people or are we not? Are we going to lay down the principle that if work cannot be found there shall be a decent living for the people, or are we going to screw and screw and screw year after year until the condition of the people becomes worse—administer, administer, administer until the position gets absolutely intolerable and unbearable? If that is his idea I think the Minister is doing his very best to realise it. If, on the other hand, the idea is this—that if for the time being the Government cannot discover any method either of improving trade or providing palliative measures the people are to live in decency and comfort, every Member of the House would be behind the Government in that course. It is not that Members of the House are unsympathetic—certainly not Members on this side of the House—to those who are out of work, and these paltry, miserable, mean, despicable methods are not the methods that ought to be adopted by any Government in the present condition of affairs. Think of the position of the man who for years has never known what it was to have a full week's employment?
There are men and women in my own county, some of the most decent people that God ever put the breath of life into, who, for years, have never known what it is to have anything like comfort, and on the top of that they get treatment like this. A girl may have been working as well as the state of trade would allow her to work for years, and may have exhausted what is known as her standard benefit. Immediately that is the case, if it can be proved that the household has an income of 1s. 8½d. per head per day, excluding rent—if there is that sum to cover food and clothing—benefit can be disallowed. And I suppose the working people have a right to a certain amount of pleasure—have they not—a certain amount of right to some of the good things of the world. Working people have eyes, senses and feelings; they know what a good picture is; they know what a good play is; they know what a good performance is, and they have a right to have them. But 1s. 8½d. a day! What can they do on this sum? And yet, should it be the case that there is that amount going into a household, decent boys and girls have to become parasites
on their parents, and day after day their position becomes worse and more intolerable.
I am not going to make a long speech on this matter, I shall probably make a much longer one on the salary of the Minister, but with all the goodwill in the world I could not let this Estimate go through without voting against it, because I believe it represents a policy that is bad, that is inhuman, and, apart from that, possesses no sense of justice whatever. If we were assured that the Government's method was doing some good we could understand the policy, but what is the result of it? The result is that the already over-burdened poor are having another load laid on them, that just those districts where the distress is greatest are being handicapped by heavier rates. If the House wishes to know what is the result of a liberal administration of unemployment insurance they can find it from the figures of the Poor Law Returns. During a certain period in 1924, when a different method of administration was adopted, Poor Law figures fell by 80,000. I estimated at the time, and it was estimated, I think, by the Ministry officially, that something like 80,000 unemployed could fairly be said to have been paid benefits who previously were refused them. That was a rough approximation between those who came on unemployment benefit and those who went off the Poor Law benefit. Now it is the reverse way, and therefore we have another injustice added. We see the number of unemployed persons receiving benefit decreasing, while the numbers who are drawing Poor Law relief are increasing, and that is a state of things that ought not to exist.
We believe that this method is wrong, and it is not even economy. On this side of the House we are not impressed when supporters of the Government speak about economy when we see Northern Ireland, Singapore, and half a dozen other sources of expenditure in regard to which the Government have no sense of economy, but when it comes to crushing down the unemployed workers, that is the time they preach economy. We shall have no part or lot with that kind of economy, and for us there is only one way. We believe that this should be made a national responsibility as quickly as possible. We believe that the benefits now being paid are small enough without
being reduced, and to take away, under the circumstances described, the standard benefit of an unemployed person on the allegation that he ox she is not genuinely seeking work is what I should call, if I were an unemployed man, robbery.
What did the Parliamentary Secretary say about these cases? These people are out of work and they are refused benefit ostensibly because they are not seeking work; but nobody knows where to find work. The Parliamentary Secretary said these people would be at work in their own trade in a short time, and that it would be useless to start training them. Did anybody ever hear anything like that statement from a responsible Minister? Here are people who cannot find work, and they are genuinely out of work at their own trade, and yet they are refused benefit because it is said that they are not genuinely seeking work. If that be the frame of mind of the Government, then there is a gulf between us, and we shall express our opinion of the policy of the Government by going into the Lobby against this Estimate, and we shall take the earliest opportunity on the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Labour of raising the whole question of unemployment insurance, and we shall move a reduction of the Minister's salary.

Miss WILKINSON: There is one important point upon which the Parliamentary Secretary has not given us any reply. We greatly regret that not one word was said upon it although at question time when the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and I were raising the matter the Minister promised us a reply. The point I am referring to is with regard to the training scheme for women workers, and the cutting down of the grant for this purpose. The position is that all over the country there has been a large amount of money extended on relief schemes for men while the grant for women is being cut down. We do not consider that the present grant for women is sufficient, in fact, it is utterly insufficient, and we regret to see that a reduction has been proposed in the amount.
With regard to unemployed women there has been no money at all spent on relief works for them. On this subject I have made careful inquiry in Manchester where I am a member of the City Council and while I find a large sum has been spent on relief work for
men barely £200 has been spent upon the employment of some extra, women cleaners. The only scheme that the Parliamentary Secretary has brought forward in connection with employment for women has been the domestic scheme arranged by the central committee for the employment of women. I agree that that committee has done very good work. Its work has been commended by various Ministers and various parties in this House, but I would like to point out that that committee has been starved for funds, and is compelled to carry on its work in a most pettifogging fashion.
The idea which that Committee started with was that women, and especially young girls, should be provided with some general training, and there was training for special work and for domestic work. I do not think anyone will imagine for a moment that the only work that should be given to unemployed women is domestic work, but at any rate many hon. Members opposite have urged that the insurance benefit for women under 30 should be taken away because domestic service places could be found for them. That is a position which is often put forward by hon. Members opposite. Here is a scheme for the training of women for this very particular class of work which is considered to be so necessary. The Parliamentary Secretary stated this afternoon that the number of women who have obtained employment by this means shows such a large percentage of the number who have been trained as to justify the carrying on of the scheme. Now we are to understand that the grants for this important work, the only work which is being done for unemployed women, are to be cut down to about 50 per cent. of the total which was voted last year, and the reduced amount is to be spread over the whole year.
I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that a large number of women workers resent the amount of money they are called upon to pay in insurance contributions and the very small amount that is being given back to them. When all these things are added up, let us see how the women are penalised. They are paying their ordinary contributions, and in addition they are paying the extra 2d. for dependants' allowances and yet the proportion that goes to women is only a
minute fraction of the total amount paid for dependant allowances. That is one way in which they are penalised. They are also penalised before the rota committees, because a woman is supposed to have someone to keep her, and these women are being refused standard benefit. I know a number of cases of women who work in the textile trade, tailoring and dressmaking, where they are normally employed as married women, but they are told after paying their contributions that they cannot have even one week's standard benefit, because they are not genuinely seeking work, and they are not given an opportunity even of showing that they are genuinely seeking work, because it is assumed that they are dependent upon their husbands. These women now find that nothing whatever is being done for them except this pitiable amount which we are now asked to vote, and yet the Minister not only thinks this matter is not worth the faintest reference, but apparently he thinks it is not even worth attending to when it is pointed out to him in the House.
There is another matter I want to raise with regard to this question of standard benefit, and it is the large number who are being refused standard benefit on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work, or on the ground that they left their employment through some misdemeanour, or some similar fault, and they are never given even a chance to know on what evidence their dole is cut down. A considerable number of cases have come before me where the women have been turned down on secret reports from their employers. I have in mind the case of a woman employed as a cook in a factory who was asked to do work on a rush day which was far in excess of human endurance, and she broke down under the strain and was sent home. Later another woman was given her place at £1 a week less wages, and the woman who was dismissed was never told her crime, and besides this she was deprived of six weeks' benefit.
I am not blaming the Employment Exchanges in regard to this matter, and I am glad the Minister is taking a certain amount of money to increase his staff, because Heaven knows it needs it. I know there are many cases of really wicked overwork on the part of the Employment Exchanges staff, who have to work very long hours and put in a great deal of un-
paid overtime. We all realise that some of the nerves of these officials must give way under the strain, and more work is being placed upon them than they can humanly be expected to perform. For this we blame the policy of the Minister, and the policy laid down in the circulars which he has issued, which tend to deprive people not only of their standard benefit but also deprive them of benefits for which they have actually paid.
If we were dealing with the Prudential Assurance Company or any other assurance company, and they refused to pay the benefits which they had agreed to pay they could be prosecuted in the Court, and they would be accused of obtaining money by false pretences. That is practically what the Minister of Labour is doing, because these people have been told that if they pay their insurance contributions they will be protected when they are unemployed and yet they are now deprived of the benefit for which they have actually paid, and deprived of it in cases, as the Minister himself has stated, where obviously they were going back to their own trade after a fortnight or three weeks. It is ridiculous waste of money to suggest that they could be trained for another trade in the course of that time; all that they can do, in a seasonal case like that, is to wait until their work opens again. It is one of the cases which was brought forward when the first Insurance Act was brought before this House, and it was stated that in cases such as those of seasonal trades people ought to be protected during these seasonal periods of unemployment.

Finally, on this question of the younger people, especially, being deprived of their benefit on the ground that they ought to be living with their relations, I want to ask the Minister if he realises that that in itself is putting a premium on the children being turned out of their homes, and living with neighbours or living in lodgings, because that is the only way in which they can qualify for their benefit. The more one goes through this, the more one sees the pettifogging meanness of the Ministry of Labour. It is not a question of bringing forward individual cases; there is riot one of us here who could not bring case after case—hundreds of cases; and, when they are all added together, I am perfectly certain that the Minister of Labour himself must blush for his Department. Are these people to be told that they must live on Poor Law relief? If so, let the whole thing be amalgamated with the Poor Law system itself. But, if you are going to have an insurance scheme, let it be an insurance scheme as far as standard benefit is concerned, and at least protect those people who have paid in on the word of the Ministry of Labour, and not get their contributions and then try in every tiny little pettifogging way you can to deprive them of that for which they have paid.

Mr. BETTERTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question he now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 131.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[6.32 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chapman, Sir S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Briggs, J. Harold
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briscoe, Richard George
Christie, J. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Astor, Viscountess
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cooper, A. Duff


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cope. Major William


Balniel, Lord
Bullock, Captain M.
Couper, J. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Betterton, Henry B.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Blundell, F. N.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Remer, J. R.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Jacob, A. E.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jephcott, A. R.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Salmon, Major I.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Elvedon, Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandon, Lord


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Savery, S. S.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Fermoy, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fielden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Finburgh, S.
Lougher, L.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Forrest, W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W)
Smithers, Waldron


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Major Hon. O. (W'morland)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Storry-Deans, R.


Ganzoni, Sir John.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macquisten, F. A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Captain D.
Templeton, W. P.


Grant, J. A.
Marriott, Sir. J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Grotrian, H. Brent
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Tinne, J. A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hanbury, C
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, P. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Harland, A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arther Clive
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Murchison, C. K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wells, S. R.


Hartington, Marquess of
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville R. J.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hawke, John Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oakley, T.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Penny, Frederick George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hilton, Cecil
Perring, Sir William George
Withers, John James


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wolmer, Viscount


Holland, Sir Arthur
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Womersley, W. J


Homan, C. W. J.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, William
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Radford, E. A.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Raine, W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ramsden, E.
Wragg, Herbert


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)



Hurst, Gerald B.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
Dennison, R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cape, Thomas
Duncan, C.


Ammon, Charles George
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Fenby, T. D.


Baker, Walter
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Gosling, Harry


Barnes, A.
Cove, W. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Barr, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Batey, Joseph
Crawford, H. E.
Greenall, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bromfield, William
Davies, Rays John (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bromley, J.
Day, Colonel Harry
Groves, T.




Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morris, R. H.
Stamford, T. W.


Hardie, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell


Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Taylor, R. A.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Palln, John Henry
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.
Townend, A. E.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Riley, Ben
Varley, Frank B.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Viant, S. P.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Rose, Frank H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kelly, W. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lawson, John James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lee, F.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Windsor. Walter


Lowth, T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wright, W.


Lunn, William
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mackinder, W.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



March, S.
Snell, Harry

Question put accordingly, "That '£10' stand part of tine Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 134.

Division No. 76.]
AYES.
[6.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forrest, W.


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Astor, Viscountess
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir Park


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Grant, J. A.


Balniel, Lord
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Couper, J. B.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hanbury, C.


Blundell, F. N.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harland, A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of


Brass, Captain W.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Haslam, Henry C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hawke, John Anthony


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Elveden, Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hilton, Cecil


Buckingham, Sir H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bullock, Captain M.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Holland, Sir Arthur


Burman, J. B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Homan, C. W. J.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fielden, E. B.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Butt, Sir Alfred
Finburgh, S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Campbell, E. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Murchison, C. K.
Smithers, Waldron


Hurd, Percy A.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. P. (Will'sden, E.)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Neville, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Jacob, A. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Jephcott, A. R.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Storry-Deans, R.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Nuttall, Ellis
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Oakley, T.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Pennefather, Sir John
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Penny, Frederick George
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Templeton, W. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Perring, Sir William George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Tinne, J. A.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Preston, William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Loder, J. de V.
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lougher, L.
Raine, W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ramsden, E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lumley, L. R.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wells, S. R.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Remer, J. R.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


MacIntyre, Ian
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


McLean, Major A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macquisten, F. A.
Salmon, Major I.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Malone, Major P. B.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wise, Sir Fredric


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Withers, John James


Margesson, Captain D.
Sandon, Lord
Wolmer, Viscount


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Womersley, W. J.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K
Savery, S. S.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew. W)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wragg, Herbert


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Hennessy and Major Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gosling, Harry
Kenyon, Barnet


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, George


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawson, John James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenall, T.
Lee, F.


Baker, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Barnes, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Barr, J.
Groves, T.
Mackinder, W.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
March, S.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bromfield, William
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Bromley, J.
Hardie, George D.
Montague, Frederick


Buchanan, G.
Harris, Percy A.
Morris, R. H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cape, Thomas
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Naylor, T. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold


Cluse, W. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Palin, John Henry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Paling, W.


Connolly, M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Purcell, A. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Riley, Ben


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Day, Colonel Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.


Dennison, R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Duncan, C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scrymgeour, E.


Fenby, T. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Scurr, John


Gillett, George M.
Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)




Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Stamford, T. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Stephen, Campbell
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Taylor, R. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sitch, Charles H.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Thurtle, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Tinker, John Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Townend, A. E.
Wright, W.


Snell, Harry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.



Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Varley, Frank B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wallhead, Richard C.



Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [9th MARCH].

Resolution reported,

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1925ߝ26.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland."

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of scheduled Agreement.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper—in page 1, line 17, after the word "confirmed," to insert the words "subject to a provision for a repayment of any sums paid"—is not in order on the ground of incompleteness. The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) I have some doubt about. I am not quite sure whether it is compatible with the Agreement, but I shall be glad to hear the hon. Member on that.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after the word "confirmed," to insert the words
subject to the modification that the agreement shall not operate in any financial year covered by the agreement in which a
surplus in both Unemployment Funds of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ascertained.
I do not think the Amendment is in any sense incompatible with the Agreement. It is only a very small modification. It is only to omit from the operation of the Agreement any year in which both the funds are in surplus. It will confine the operation of the Agreement to the years in which one of the funds has a deficiency.

The CHAIRMAN: I will give the hon. Member the benefit of any doubt.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: As I understand your ruling, it amounts to this, that an Amendment is not in order which would have the effect of varying the Agreement.

The CHAIRMAN: No. The Amendment would be in order if it modifies the Agreement but does not destroy it. That is to say, supposing there were a number of independent provisions, you might vary the Agreement by putting in a Clause, "except as regards A, B, or C." That would be in order as long as the rest of the Agreement could stand by itself. My doubt was, in the somewhat complicated provisions of this Agreement, whether an Amendment of this kind really would be compatible with the Agreement at all, but I cannot on the whole say it will not.

Mr. HERBERT: The effect of the Agreement is that the fund which is in a more favourable position shall pay to the other. I suggest that it destroys the whole bargain if you interfere in any year with the fund that is in a superior position paying to the fund that is in an inferior position, whether they both have surpluses or both have deficiencies.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The Amendment will surely be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Agreement.
If this very unlikely contingency did occur and the British surplus was proportionally larger than the Irish surplus, the British Exchequer would have to make a contribution under the Agreement so as to give the Ulster fund an equivalent surplus. But at the same time the British rate of contribution would fall to be reduced under the present law, and if this Amendment were inserted it would not be possible for Northern Ireland to make a similar reduction under the existing law. In consequence, the fundamental principle of the Agreement would have been materially altered by the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: That is what I had in my mind. The Agreement hardly contemplates what I gather is an extremely unlikely case, and I think I must rule on the whole that this is a matter which must be answered on the merits and cannot be rejected on a point of Order.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not see in the Amendment anything that is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle of the Agreement. It only seeks to make a very small modification which I think the Committee in the main will approve of.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): May I resume the point of Order and point out that Clause 9 of the Agreement definitely lays down a period of four years, to terminate on 31st March, 1930? If the Amendment were carried, if the state of affairs the hon. Member contemplates were to come about at an earlier date, it is clear that the date in Clause 9 could not stand. Consequently, I submit that the Amendment is inconsistent with those words in Clause 9 of the Agreement.

The CHAIRMAN: I considered that question in connection with the former Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) for the continuation of the Agreement for a shorter space of time. I do not think in that case it can be said the Agreement would be deestroyed. I think this Amendment must be argued on the merits.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. HERBERT: I am sorry to raise yet another point. May I call your
attention again to the question whether this Amendment is within the scope of the Bill. My point in regard to that will immediately appear on consideration of the next Amendment which proposes to alter the title and preamble of the Bill. I submit that neither the title nor scope of the Bill extends to modifications of the Agreement, and that this is a modification.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has in mind some attempts which have been made to modify the Schedule. Certainly the Schedule cannot be modified, but I think it would be competent for Parliament to say that they would confirm this Agreement less certain provisions. If the hon. Member will carry his memory back to some of the discussions on the Government of Ireland Bill, he will find that the same point arose, and it was held that modifying words might be put into the body of the Bill.

Mr. D. REID: Might I call your attention to the first Sub-section of the first Clause—
The agreement set forth in the Schedule to this Act is hereby confirmed, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
I submit that the effect of the Amendment now being moved is not to confirm the Agreement, but is to confirm another Agreement which has not been arrived at. If this Amendment were carried, it would be a direct negative of the Sub-section of the Act to which I have referred. It is not possible to confirm an Agreement with modifications. We can confirm the Agreement as it stands or leave it. We can say that we shall confirm it if certain modifications are made, but the modifications must be made by the parties to the Agreement. We can only confirm the Agreement as it stands.

The CHAIRMAN: The Clause goes on to say
and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
Similar rulings have been given on more than one Government of Ireland Bill, and the hon. Member's contention would have been fatal to the Amendments moved by himself and his friends on those occasions. Parliament can give effect to an Agreement subject to a modification.

Mr. PETHICK- LAWRENCE: As I was saying before these points of order were raised, the object of this Amendment is to confine the operation of the Agreement to those years to which I am sure that the general opinion of this House desires to see it confined. The Agreement as it stands provides a great deal more than is generally supposed. We have been asked to sanction certain payments for this year and succeeding years to the Government of Northern Ireland on the understanding that the Government of Northern Ireland is in very great difficulties owing to the Unemployment Fund being in deficiency, and the argument in favour of ratifying this Agreement in this Bill is that, owing to its deficiency, the Government of Northern Ireland cannot see its way to guarantee the benefits of the Insurance Fund. We have been asked therefore to come in on behalf of this country to enable the Government of Northern Ireland to pay its way. All of us, on these benches as well as on the benches opposite, have seen the force of that argument, and, although we may differ on the method, we are agreed on the principle that something ought to be done, but this Agreement goes a great deal further than that, if it is left to stand as it actually appears. This Agreement does not confine its operation to the years in which the fund of Northern Ireland is in deficiency, but it covers also those years in which the Irish Fund has a surplus, provided that surplus is smaller, in the way it is measured in this Agreement, than the surplus in this country. I think it is asking a great deal of our people, heavily taxed as they are, to ask them to contemplate paying over to the Government of Northern Ireland a sum, for one year or it may be for more, for the Unemployment Fund there, where there has actually been a surplus in Northern Ireland in that year. Therefore, the object of my Amendment is to strike out from this Bill all those years, if any there be, in which both the funds are in surplus.
It may be that the Chancellor will take the view that this is an Agreement, and you have either to ratify an Agreement or reject it. I quite realise that argument has a great deal of force, but it is quite possible that those who made this Agreement may be willing to accept that change. After all, theoretically,
at any rate, it is bilateral, and it is theoretically putting on each country a liability in years of surplus, a liability which it is quite absurd should be borne on either side. Therefore, this slight modification of the Agreement might make it acceptable to both parties. If that be so, then it is in the interests of commensense that that modification should be adopted. While we are quite willing to help the Government of Northern Ireland where they are in real difficulties, and where there is an actual deficiency, it does seem to me ridiculous that we should be burdening ourselves in future years when there may be a surplus on the fund. It is for that reason that I put forward this Amendment.
May I refer to something that was said by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert). He said that if this Amendment were carried it would bring the operation of the Bill to an earlier end. I do not think so. It might suspend the operation as the purpose of the agreement would not be operating in a particular year. That would not be bringing the Agreement to a premature end. It would only not have its effect in a particular year in which a surplus occurred. It is for those reasons that this Amendment in my judgment is doing nothing more than recognising the feeling which there undoubtedly is in this country, and it is for that reason that I ask this Committee to accept it.

Mr. HERBERT: May I again raise a point of Order? The hon. Member's speech has now elucidated the point. In his speech the hon. Member said that he was proposing a modification to a bilaterial Agreement which he hoped might be agreeable to both parties. I submit that that shows that his Amendment has the effect of not merely putting a modification in the Bill, but definitely of altering the terms of the Agreement. This country has made a certain bargain under which it has to pay during certain years, and is also entitled in certain events to receive during certain years. If this Amendment were carried, it might cut out the right of this country to receive as against the liability to give.

The CHAIRMAN: When an Agreement has been arrived at, and it is brought before Parliament to have the force of law, Parliament can say that it shall have the force of law less this or that pro-
vision. If the provision were of such a nature as to destroy the Agreement, it would practically be a negative, but it is not out of order on that account.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In view of your ruling that this Amendment is not disorderly, it must be made plain, on behalf of the Government, that it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for three reasons. In the first place, because, as was frankly admitted by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, it would alter the Agreement, and would involve the resumption of negotiations between the British Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. We really do not think there is any justification for that. Moreover, in the second place, the contingency is most remote, and very unlikely to occur in the period in question. Should we really, just for the sake of rewarding the patient investigations which the hon. Gentleman has made into the structure of this Bill, and for a consideration hypothetical, remote, improbable in the last degree, suspend all these negotiations and embark on new negotiations with the Ulster Government for another Agreement to be signed with them? Really, there are a great many more laborious and necessary tasks before us at the present time than this.
My third objection on behalf of the Government to this Amendment is that it really is not equitable or fair. It does not follow out the principle we have endeavoured to obey, of equal conditions prevailing under similar circumstances between the contributors and beneficiaries of the Fund on each side of the Channel. We have tried in this Bill to secure as far as possible that the benefits and the contributions shall be the same in Northern Ireland as they are in this country. Now this Amendment of the hon. Member, although I am sure he did not intend it, would have the effect of preventing in certain circumstances the Government of Northern Ireland from reducing the contributions of the employer and the workman pari passu with similar reductions which might be justified in this country. It is absolutely necessary that there should be

an endeavour to equate proportionately the deficiencies in any year and equally to equate proportionately the surpluses. The moment that principle is lost you get an inequality of deficiencies, most unfair and most detrimental, prevailing between, say, Belfast and Glasgow. If the British surplus in any year is proportionately larger than the Irish surplus, we should make our contribution to the Irish surplus to make the surpluses proportionately equal. Then it would be possible for the Northern Government and the British Government to carry out the provisions of the law as to reductions of contributions, both of employers and employed. Any variation of this would upset the whole poise and balance of the Agreement.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Even under the Bill as it stands have we an assurance? Is it not true that if the deficiency on the Irish Fund still remains when our deficiency has been wiped out, there will still be that inequality which the right hon. Gentleman says this Agreement will avoid?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I said that the ideal at which the Bill aims is to secure equal results for equal contributions, at the same time, to the people of Northern Ireland and the people of this country, be they employers or workmen. The hon. Member now moves an Amendment which vitiates that principle of even-handed treatment between these two extremely similar populations. When these evil consequences are pointed out to him, the hon. Member proceeds to ask, "Are you sure that your Bill is absolute and perfect in its equalisation at the present time?" I cannot contend that it surpasses ordinary human measures in arriving at a standard of absolute perfection, but I am sure that it is my duty to resist the proposal of the hon. Member, because, whatever may be the present defects in the Bill, the Amendment would emphasise them in a most remarkable and lamentable degree.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120: Noes, 238.

Division No. 77.]
AYES.
[7.17 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Barr, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Baker, Walter
Batey, Joseph


Ammon, Charles George
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Roilox)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Taylor, R. A.


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Thurtle, E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morris, R. H.
Townend, A. E.


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Varley, Frank B.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Wallhead, Richard C.


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Warne, G. H.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wright, W.


Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chapman, Sir S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grant, J. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gretton, Colonel John


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Grotrian, H. Brent.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Balniel, Lord
Cope, Major William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Couper, J. B.
Harland, A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Haslam, Henry C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hawke, John Anthony


Blundell, F. N.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davidson, J.(Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Davidson. Major-General Sir John H.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hilton, Cecil


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Briggs, J. Harold
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Homan, C. W. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Holland, Sir Arthur


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elveden, Viscount
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Erskine Lord (Somerset Weston-s.-M.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hudson. R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bullock, Captain M.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Hurd, Percy A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Finburgh, S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Campbell, E. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jacob, A. E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forrest, W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jephcott, A. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kindersley, Major Guy M.




King, Captain Henry Douglas
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pennefather, Sir John
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Lamb, J. Q.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Storry-Deans, R.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perring, Sir William George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pilcher, G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Preston, William
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Loder, J. de V.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Looker, Herbert William
Radford, E. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richa'd Harman
Raine, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


MacAndrew, Major Charles; Glen
Ramsden, E.
Tinne, J. A.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacIntyre, Ian
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wells, S. R.


Malone, Major P. B.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Margesson, Captain D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Meyer, Sir Frank.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wise, Sir Fredric


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Withers, John James


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandon, Lord
Wolmer, Viscount


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Womersley, W. J.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Savery, S. S.
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Murchison, C. K.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wragg, Herbert


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smithers, Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nuttall, Ellis
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley.


Oakley, T.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I desire to raise a point that was mentioned yesterday. The Committee will recollect that we are committed to £608,000 this year and to £875,000 in the four succeeding years. There was an understanding in a letter from the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland, of February, 1926, that in any year in which the British liability exceeded £1,000,000 it would be open to the Exchequer of this country to re-open the Agreement, without being exposed to a charge of breach of faith. The point I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this, that that understanding with the Government of Northern Ireland is included only in the letter which has been signed by the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland, and there is no reference to the £1,000,000 limitation in the Agreement. It is not included in this Bill in any shape or form. I want to say at once from this side, that we do not suggest that there would be any violation of an honourable understanding of this kind, but in view of the fact that it is a very emphatic declaration in the letter I cannot understand why it is not included in the Bill. The burden of this
Bill on the British taxpayers is such that I think we ought to be assured that the liability in any year will not go beyond £1,000,000. Accordingly I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us why that important provision has been omitted from the Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This Agreement was not reached except as a result of very lengthy discussion. The original negotiations began in the early part of last year, and at the outset we turned our minds to the question of amalgamating the two funds. By July, as the result of the labours of the Cabinet and the expert Committee we had so far advanced that the present principle of the Measure, based on re-insurance, had been established. It was at that time that we reached a Provisional Agreement on this subject with the Ulster Government. That Agreement still remained a Provisional Agreement, and had not been confirmed by the British Cabinet. Here I must apologise for unwittingly misleading the House yesterday, when I said that we reached the Irish settlement in July. It was the Provisional Agreement upon this unemployment insurance question which was made in July, and it was not until September that these matters were
confirmed between the two Governments. When the Irish settlement was on the anvil and was being hammered out, the clearing off of these other matters became urgent, and the Agreement was reached which is embodied in this Bill. I suggested that we ought to have some security in the event of unemployment in Ulster becoming so serious and the deficiency between the two funds becoming so great that a charge of over £1,000,000 in any one year might fall upon the the British Exchequer.
I thought that was only a reasonable precaution, but I do not think it ought to be inserted in the face of the Bill. If it were inserted, it would not conform to the general principle of the Bill, which is one of re-insurance, because it would imply an obligation on the one hand which would not be met by any similar obligation on the other; and to put such an obligation and limitation on the one side would really be to go beyond what is reasonable. Without prejudice to the principle and structure of the Bill I thought, as it had been provisionally agreed between the two Governments five months previously to the December Agreement, we would get the necessary guarantee which would enable this House, or any British Government responsible to it, to resume its liberty of action if the Fund became too expensive, and accordingly we got a guarantee in the form of the letters which have been exchanged between the two Governments. The letter from Northern Ireland is absolutely effective, just as effective as if it were inserted in the Bill, so far as the liberty and freedom of the British Government and the House of Commons is concerned. We are entitled to raise the matter in case the deficiency exceeds £1,000,000.
We are completely covered by that letter, not indeed from such arguments as would be used in the event of conditions becoming very bad in Ulster, so bad that further action would have to be taken, not covered from any arguments which may be used on the ground of the hardship and evil consequences which would result from a cessation of British aid; but we are entirely immune from any reproach arising on the ground of breach of good faith, and it is expressly open to any Government sitting here in the event of the cost exceeding £1,000,000 to re-open
the whole question. It seems to me if it was re-opened it would probably be settled by an amalgamation of the Funds, but I hope the House will not ask me to go back upon the arrangements which we made with Sir James Craig at the time when Mr. Cosgrave was here in December, when the boundary question with all its anxieties slipped away from us; tear up the letters which have been written and insert in the Bill a Clause which would in no way give greater protection than is afforded by these letters, but which would involve a re-opening of the negotiations which have now reached almost their final stage in the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will rely, as he has said openly he is willing to rely, upon the honourable undertaking contained in the letter, and also on the fact that unquestionably it leaves the House of Commons and the Government of the day perfectly free to take whatever action may seem to them appropriate should those evil circumstances arise.

Mr. GRAHAM: The reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just given makes it absolutely necessary for us to oppose this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman says that if we insert this definite limitation into the Bill it would run counter to the scheme of re-insurance which is the general principle of the proposal. We saw in the course of the Debate yesterday, and it is confirmed now, that in effect there is no real reinsurance in this scheme at all, because an important passage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech indicated that certain circumstances would only arise in the course of the four years which would permit us to expect Northern Ireland to make any contribution to our Exchequer. For all practical purposes that has ruled out re-insurance, and the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not valid in this connection. What is the other part of the right hon. Gentleman's case? He says that an agreement was reached many months ago—actually the Agreement was about August, 1925—and that it is impossible now to go back and tear up an understanding of that kind.
According to the White Paper some form of agreement was reached with Northern Ireland round about that date, but I have never heard it stated that the agreement reached then was the com-
pleted and detailed proposal which is now incorporated in this Bill. If it were, this matter dragged on until February, 1926, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to come to this House with a Financial Resolution and a Bill and put the Agreement into a Measure. The right hon. Gentleman himself recognised at that date that the taxpayers of this country must have some kind of protection, and, accordingly, he got the letter from the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland, in which there is no disagreement between the parties as to the limit of £1,000,000 from our Exchequer in any one year. If that was the spirit of the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland at that date, I see no difficulty whatever in the way of a variation of the agreement, by common consent, in order to insert that figure. And I want to point out that in the absence of a figure of that kind in the Bill we have only this letter. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly said that neither I nor anybody else casts the slightest doubt on the letter it is a slovenly way of doing financial business, and the taxpayers of this country, in a matter of some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, are entitled to a definite understanding. Accordingly, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and without casting the slightest reflection on Northern Ireland, we feel compelled in the circumstances to divide against the Clause.

Mr. HERBERT: Unfortunately I have not got the White Paper with the letter from the Government of Ireland, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me if I am wrong. My recollection of that letter is that the arrangement was that if the amount exceeds £1,000,000 in any year it would be open to this Government to reconsider the matter, and I suggest that the method in which that has been done, far from being a slovenly method, is the only correct way of dealing with it. We are now proposing to pass an Act of Parliament which shall provide for certain arrangements continuing for four years. There is nothing, except what I may call the honour of Parliament and the honour of the British nation, to prevent the Government next year passing a Measure to repeal this Bill and put an end to it. Therefore, if it is understood between the two parties to this arrangement that in certain events either party may deter-
mine, then this Parliament could, without any breach of an honourable undertaking, bring in a Bill to repeal or alter this arrangement. I am right in saying that there is no limit that we shall not pay more than £1,000,000. If the amount is more than £1,000,000, then we can reconsider it, and the only way in which we can reconsider it, the only practical way of carrying out such an arrangement, is to leave it free to this Parliament to alter this Bill if and whenever the time arises.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: This is not merely a matter of form; it is to some extent a point of substance. The Government are bound by the letter they have signed, and so are the Government of Northern Ireland, but the only way in which that letter can become operative is by undertaking a Bill in this House. That means not that the transaction is not complete, but that the transaction might under certain circumstances be not completed except on the introduction of a Bill, with all the hazards of Parliamentary procedure and possibly substantial amendment. A transaction of this kind, if it is to be made at all, ought to have been made in such a form as to be complete within itself, and the exchange of letters, which obviously bind those who have put their names to them, does not necessarily bind this Parliament. It would therefore have been much better, not only in form, but in substance, if the agreement had been set out not only in the letter but in the Statute itself.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It liberates Parliament.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I dare say it does, but the effectiveness of the letters may not be made operative until another Measure is introduced.

Mr. HERBERT: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman realises that this arrangement is not a limitation of £1,000,000, but merely a power to reconsider the arrangement, and the power to reconsider can only be exercised by legislation in this House.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite understand that from what the hon. Member said in his previous remarks, but that does not invalidate the point I am putting. I should like to make a single criticism on the whole of this transaction. I have listened to all the Debates with very great care and with a comparatively unbiassed mind, although it is a little difficult to be
entirely unbiassed on a matter which concerns Ireland. The conclusion I have come to is that a great mistake was made in splitting up the funds at all in the first place. It has led to nothing but trouble on both sides. It is very unfair to the people who come under the various schemes, and it places the insured in a position of jeopardy. As we cannot split up the interests of Belfast, Glasgow, Barrow and Liverpool, they all work together, there is a constant ebb and flow between them according to their trade, it was most improvident and rather shortsighted that we should allow the fund to be split up in the first instance. However, the only thing that Parliament can do now is to repair what has been done. I believe much the best way would be to have brought the two funds together again and to have made them one complete whole operating not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain. That may have to be the way in which we shall solve this problem in the future.
The fact is that Northern Ireland has not a basis large enough, nor a sufficient variety of trades, to run an unemployment scheme of this kind. It is necessary we should have the whole of the United Kingdom, except the special case of the Irish Free State, on which to operate unemployment insurance. It is possible that the shipbuilding trade of Belfast may become peculiarly successful, but the House must remember that the shipbuilding trade of Belfast depends to a large extent on the successful operations of a single company. In the next few years it may, from various causes which we can all foresee or imagine, pass through a period of great prosperity, or exactly the reverse. If anything in the nature of a financial crisis overtook one of these groups it would be a grave matter for the whole of Northern Ireland and would make their scheme more and more unreliable. The only way in which they can get a stable and sound financial scheme is to cover the whole of Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland. A great variety of trades is absolutely essential for any scheme of unemployment insurance. It is in these circumstances that I think the Government have proceeded with a wrong solution. They have only themselves to blame for the criticism which
has been freely made inside and outside the House that in arranging these terms they have been guided as much by old political feelings of the past as they have by care for the scheme itself. All of that might have been avoided if they had proceeded to undo the mistake that was made when the fund was split up. I do not know whether we have heard the last of this matter, but it is conceivable that five years hence we may have to deal with it once more. I hope that we shall then proceed to a sound solution.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to an answer he gave this afternoon regarding a small number of people who are living over the Ulster border but are normally employed in Northern Ireland territory. They are being deprived of their unemployment benefit. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he was prepared to take action to secure a reciprocal agreement between the Government of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State with respect to unemployment insurance, in view of the fact that persons normally employed at the Belleek pottery works in Northern Ireland, but living in the Irish Free State, are now denied unemployment benefit, although they have been insured. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that this was a matter to be dealt with entirely by the Northern Ireland Government.

The CHAIRMAN: Now that the hon. Gentleman has developed his point it seems to me that the question of the legal construction of the powers of the respective Irish Governments can hardly be affected one way or the other by this Agreement. If the hon. Member thinks otherwise, there may be a further opportunity on the Third Reading to develop his argument, but it seems to me that this Agreement does not affect it one way or the other.

Mr. CONNOLLY: If we as an Imperial Parliament are voting this large sum of £1,250,000 to the Northern Ireland Parliament in order to help them to fulfil their obligations, surely we have some right to say that the Northern Ireland Parliament shall fulfil the obligations for that period for which we were responsible? These people are suffering an injustice, and if they cannot get justice from Northern Ireland they have a right to
appeal here. My point was to draw attention to the fact that some people are suffering an injustice and that some representation should be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when this sum is voted, that the people who have paid for unemployment benefit should get it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be quite beyond my jurisdiction to attempt to deal with that particular point. But at the same time, if the hon. Gentleman would put me in possession of any particulars he has on the subject, I think I can undertake to transmit them in, at any rate, a semi-official capacity to the Government of Northern Ireland, by whom no doubt they would be considered. More than that I do not think I ought to say, because I should be stepping outside the province of a Minister of this House, in regard to the details of this administration. I am perfectly justified in saying that on account of the Agreement which Sir James Craig has expressed in his letter we shall have a full opportunity of expressing the method under which relief is administered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore put himself into communication with me.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I have not the particulars, but other hon. Members have. I am interested simply because I am familiar with the district in which these people are.

Mr. CHURCHILL: One other word, and that is that I cannot allow one observation of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) to pass without comment. He said that he was in favour of the amalgamation of the funds. He said that he thought the method we had taken was not the best method of dealing with an admitted difficulty, and that we had been influenced by old political associations or pre-War associations in taking this method. The amalgamation of the funds was what the Ulster Government and people would have liked. For that they were prepared to make great exertions and to undertake the deficiency. The reason we have adopted this scheme instead of that has been, not deference to political associations, but a desire as far as possible to safeguard the general financial interest of this country as long as it may be safe-
guarded. That has been the sole motive. If we had followed the right hon. Gentleman's plan we should have gratified hon. Gentlemen from Ulster a great deal more than we are doing by this present method, and incidentally the cost of Ulster insurance would have been merged in the general borrowing powers of our very large Insurance Fund, and would not have emerged inconveniently for me in the present form of a charge on the Exchequer. Therefore, upon every ground, we have taken a spartan course, both in regard to the treatment of political supporters and in regard to making direct contributions from the Exchequer instead of allowing these matters to pass into general borrowing.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Let me explain what was in my mind. I had in mind the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was in this case making a grant, whereas, in the case of England in similar circumstances it is done by way of loan. There is certainly a special advantage given to Northern Ireland in receiving a grant on which no interest is paid, rather than a loan, on which interest would be paid, in the case of Great Britain.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But the draft on the General Fund which Ulster would make in the present year, if the funds were amalgamated, would be considerably larger than the grant which she will get under the present arrangement, and the rate at which Ulster would repay, over a long period of time, to the fund the extra grant which she will get during the bad years, would be so slow—it will work out at about 3 per cent.—that undoubtedly the present arrangement is less beneficial to Ulster than an amalgamation of the funds.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I understood from the White Paper and the Agreement between the Northern Ireland Parliament and the right hon. Gentleman, that the payments were to be made under the same conditions as payments made in our own country, and that the British Labour Minister had a right to supervise such payments. I wish to ask whether, in the event of circumstances arising such as have been pointed out by my hon. Friend, any Member of this House will have a right to make a statement to our own Labour Minister?

The CHAIRMAN: That has already been ruled out by Mr. Speaker. It will not be so competent.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 118.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Albery Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gretton, Colonel John
Nuttall, Ellis


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Oakley, T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pennefather, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balniel, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harland, A.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bennett, A. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Philipson, Mabel


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pilcher, G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, William


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Haslam, Henry C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Blundell, F. N.
Hawke, John Anthony
Radford, E. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Raine, W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Briggs, J. Harold
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Remer, J. R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bullock, Captain M.
Homan, C. W. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campbell, E. T.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandon, Lord


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Savery, S. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jacob, A. E.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Couper, J. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Lougher, L.
Storry-Deans, R.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macintyre, Ian
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Elveden, Viscount
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Templeton, W. P.


Everard, W. Lindsay
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Malone, Major P. B
Tinne, J. A.


Fermoy, Lord
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain D.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Finburgh, S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Forrest, W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watts, Dr. T.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Neville, R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Womersley, W. J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)



Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Viscount Curzon.


Withers, John James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.



Wolmer, Viscount
Wragg, Herbert



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lee, F
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Varley, Frank B.


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Warne, G. H.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell, A. A.



Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.

CLAUSE 2 (Short title, commencement and duration) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule and Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c, 65, and extension of period for giving guarantees.)

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that the guarantee given in respect of a loan for the development of Kentish coalfields shall be withdrawn.

Captain BOURNE: On a point of Order. May I respectfully submit that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is out of order, as being outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: This is an amending Bill, and my Amendment deals with the operations of the principal Act. This is the only opportunity we shall have of dealing with the amount granted under the Trade Facilities Act for this purpose.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This particular Bill is to increase the limits of the guarantee and obviously this Amendment would restrict the limits of the guarantee.

Mr. LAWSON: Do I understand that after we have agreed to a grant of £5,000,000 on this occasion, there will be
no opportunity of dealing with the method by which that sum is to be administered? Since this large amount was granted for the Kent coalfield, there has not been any opportunity of dealing with the matter in the House of Commons and if we are not to have an opportunity now, all one can say is that we have no control at all over this matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Bill has nothing to do with what has taken place in the past, or with the withdrawal of any guarantee. The Amendment as framed is outside the scope of the Bill, but I do not say that the hon. Member cannot raise this same question on some other issue.

Mr. MARDY JONES: We had an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade the other day when I raised this very point that matters of detail would be considered on the Committee stage, and the question of public policy as then raised was this: whether it was wise in the national interests to encourage the developments of a new coalfield at a time when 200,000 miners were out of work, and when it is a known fact that there is no prospect of new markets to absorb the coal produced under this scheme. Is not that in order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I see the point which the hon. Member is raising, but I would draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has an Amendment later on the Paper, and I think we might discuss this question on the second Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: For the guidance of the Committee, may I ask whether the increase of the total sum from £70,000,000 to £75,000,000 is not brought about by the fact that certain guarantees have been given or are in process of being given, of which this is one, but for which the extra £5,000,000 would not be required? In these circumstances, if the grant for the Kent coalfield is included in the £5,000,000, surely it is in order to discuss what my hon. Friends regard as a necessary proviso limiting the guarantee to such schemes as will not act detrimentally to other grave and large interests.

Mr. D. HERBERT: May I submit that although the right hon. Gentleman's point might be an argument for voting
against the Bill as a whole, yet it does not bring within the scope of the Bill the Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask your advice, Sir. Under what conditions can we have an opportunity of discussing the amount guaranteed to the Kent coalfield? Are we to understand that we will not be able to discuss that matter in any circumstances?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out that the hon. Member can raise this question again on a later Amendment, and possibly the argument would be more suitable to that Amendment. We cannot, however, discuss the question now. It is out of order to move to withdraw a guarantee which has already been given.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I ask for a ruling as to this suggestion which may possibly meet the wishes of my hon. Friends behind me. On reaching the further Amendment which you have indicated, Sir, might there not be an understanding that we should discuss, first, the general principle of guarantees and existing industrial conditions, and, secondly, back up our arguments by illustrations, and if the use of the illustration of the Kent coalfield were permitted, I think our case would be met.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: "Illustration" is a rather wide term, but I shall be glad to consider the question when it comes up on the further Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I have an answer to my question which, with all respect, was addressed to you, Sir—whether the additional sum, required has not been necessitated by the grant which has been made for the Kent coalfield and whether it does not come within the purview of the Committee as a fit and proper subject for discussion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that particular point would have been relevant on the Second Reading, but it certainly does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask if a manuscript Amendment would be in order in these terms:
Provided that no guarantee shall be given in respect of a loan, similar to that for the development of the Kentish coalfield.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not seen any manuscript Amendment to that effect. If the hon. Member hands in an Amendment, of course it will be considered, but I think I have already given a hint to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street that this question might possibly be raised on a later Amendment.

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that any further guarantees given under the said Section 1 shall be subject to such conditions as shall ensure the participation by the public in the value of the assets created.
This Amendment raises an important principle which cannot be adequately discussed in the few minutes that remain before a Quarter past Eight o'clock. I shall, however, indicate to the Committee the main point underlying it. Under this Bill the community increases by £5,000,000 the guarantee which it is giving to certain private enterprises. The community gives a very valuable guarantee, a guarantee which is costly to the community, and depressing to the national credit, as I hope to argue in due course.

Captain BOURNE: On a point of Order. Is it in Order on a Bill which has been authorised by a Financial Resolution to introduce a principle which is not in the Bill or in the main Act which the Bill seeks to amend?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not prepared at this moment to give a ruling that this is an amending or extending Bill to the original Act. It is clearly within the powers of the Committee to modify it so long as it is within the terms of the Money Resolution recently passed by this House.

Mr. DALTON: I was contending that the community receives no quid pro quo for the guarantee which is given under this Bill and the purpose of the Amendment is to enforce the principle that, where public credit is employed at a cost to the community, some public asset, some share to the public in the assets created under the guarantee, ought to be assigned. The detailed way in which these assets might be provided is a matter on which we do not express any definite opinion. If the Amendment is accepted, as we hope it may be, we are quite willing to leave to the Government
the detailed manner of applying the principle. During the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill the hon. Member for Darwen (Sir F. Sanderson) suggested that the Government might form a fund by charging a certain percentage upon every guarantee given under this Bill. That fund, I think, he proposed should be constituted on the basis of 1 per cent. of every guarantee made to a private concern under this Bill. Such fund would, of course, constitute a liquid asset to the community, and might be employed in varied ways. It would, at any rate, be—in a limited way—a quid pro quo such as we are contending for in this Amendment.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the interests of the fishing industry demand a closer co-operation of various Government Departments, and that among other important matters the Chancellor of the Exchequer should do more to encourage efficient harbours so as to help to secure sound finance; that the Minister of Transport should use his Department to facilitate access to the home markets for the purpose of obtaining cheap food for the people; that the Minister of Labour should both co-operate with the Board of Education to deal with the lack of apprentices and consider this chance of bringing up to date the fishing fleets to relieve unemployment; that the Board of Trade should encourage exports and endeavour, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, to gain concessions in foreign markets; that the Minister of Health should fit the various Acts of his Department more closely to the needs of fishermen, while the whole Government should combine to develop this ancient and important industry.
This Resolution is framed in rather a different way from the fishing industry Resolutions which have been passed in this House during the last few years. My reason for endeavouring to frame it in a different way was because I realised that, in a matter of this importance, if we are really to accomplish very much, we must try to avoid two things. In the first place, I would like to express the hope, if I may that the ordinary private Member will avoid during this Debate
using what I may describe as the sort of "Backsheesh, Backsheesh" cry to the Government that is usual in a great many of these Debates. I am not raising the matter for the purpose of asking the Government to give contributions to the industry in many ways, but rather that we may have a closer co operation in the Government towards helping the industry as a whole. In the same way as I hope private Members will endeavour to look at it from a wider point of view, I hope the Government themselves may avoid what many of us who are connected with the fishing industry have always found a very great difficulty, and that is that, whenever you approach any particular part of the Government, you have always been met with the cry, "Next Department, please." There is nothing more hopeless, when you are trying to make some progress in a particular industry, than to be always having it pointed out to you that it is just round the corner, but not just where you are at the moment, and then, when you get there, you come back to where you originally started.
As far as I can understand it, at the present time you have got a very definite check to progress in many of the great Government Departments. I do not think it would be wise this evening, on the eve of the publication of the Report as to how we are to economise, to ask the Government to extend its spending powers in any particular way, but the other day I put three questions to the Government, based not exactly on promises, but, if I might describe them so, on phrases of hopefulness which were used by the Minister of Agriculture last year. I put a question on the subject of wireless, and was met with the answer that little or nothing had been done. I do not think, to be quite frank, that that is the Minister's fault. I put a question in regard to a research vessel for the West of England, and I found that absolutely nothing had been done by the Ministry at all. There, I think very definitely, the Ministry has made a great mistake, even from the economy point of view, because there can be no doubt whatever that, if you could open up new fishing grounds on the West Coast to-day, you would find employment for many thousands of people, and you would also find food for many of our people. It would be a real chance.
The third question I put was on the subject of fish cultivation, and the Minister informed me that he was making good progress with slow-moving fish. It is a fairly slow-moving Ministry very often, and I did not expect them to be going very fast. But the trouble, as I see it, as far as research and an exploring vessel are concerned, is that there are certain sections of the community which rather imagine that research is merely for the purpose of shutting up fishing grounds, and that exploration is for the purpose of opening up fishing grounds, and I very much deprecate the sort of thing that goes on in which one side of a Department is busy shutting up and the other side is equally busy opening up. There are very grave difficulties in the way of shutting up any fishing grounds at the present time, and there is also a very real necessity that we should look after the breeding grounds throughout the whole of the ocean to-day, from many points of view, particularly some of the close in-shore fishery grounds. It is of the utmost importance that they should have a reasonable amount of care and protection.
I am not going to say very much in regard to the counter-Resolution, as I might call it. I realise that, as an expression of piety, the phraseology is such that it must bring great rejoicing to the hearts of the Whips' Office, and I am not at all certain that this piety and this phraseology will not have to serve as the best thing we can get on this occasion, but we can deal with that after we have heard the Minister. I am very sorry indeed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be here to-night. I fully realise the difficulty of getting anyone so modest as he is, and so essentially one of the Elder Statesmen, to come out and take a part in our Debate to-night, but I would like to point out that there is this point of view, that the fishing industry is, roughly, the sixth largest industry in Great Britain, and that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to conduct the finances of this country in the interests of the nation, he would be wise—or, at least, I think he would be wise, and I believe the House will agree with me—in trying to get into the closest possible touch with those who represent the various great industries. The industry since the War has had very many great difficulties. It
lost many of its best men during the War; it had great financial losses in some respects and great gains in others; and the harbours right round the whole coast were neglected during the War period in a very alarming way.
When you realise the numbers employed in the industry to-day, as compared with what they were before the War, you will realise that the men in that industry made a very definite effort to keep their industry up to strength, and even to progress, as far as that is concerned, but there are certain points of similarity between this industry and that of agriculture. You have seen agriculture gradually decaying through the past generation. That decay has cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer a subsidy to sugar beet, and it has cost an immense amount in remission of rates and very great sums in many ways. It very nearly, but not quite, cost us a wheat subsidy. Surely it is better to take this industry in hand now and expend a reasonable amount of money—and I do not believe it is necessary to expend a very great amount—in developing the industry, in keeping your fishermen engaged in the industry, and encouraging them rather than allow them to drift into the great towns, and leave derelict the fishing villages all round our coasts. That is the reason why I had hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take part in the Debate to-night, and show us where he might help us.
The next point with which I would like to deal is the matter of foreign trade. Here, as far as exports are concerned, I am treading on ground which is always liable to give the Opposition an opening. I am glad to see I have the honour of the presence of the Leader of the Opposition to-night. So far as Russia is concerned, before you can develop any trade in fish, you have first of all to get over the barrage of the 1924 crop which is still in Leningrad. When you have done that, you have got to re-organise the whole of the Russian railway system, and, when that is done, re-organise the purchasing power of the Russian peasant.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be surprised to hear that herrings have been sold and delivered to Russia in the last quarter?

Commander WILLIAMS: I would not be surprised to learn that herrings have been sold to some parts of Russia, but
there is a very large difference between being able to export the pre-War volume of herrings and what we would be likely to send to-day. But I do say very clearly—and this is the real point of my argument—that my real desire is not merely to develop one market. No one wishes to develop the Russian market more than I do, but I realise it is a false trail that has been put before the people on the East Coast in this respect. What I wish to do is to draw the attention of the Government and of the House to the vast possibilities there are in the Southern markets of Europe to-day. There has been a most interesting and valuable amount of work done by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade as regards the development, or the attempted development, of these Southern markets.
If you realise the enormous purchasing power of the peoples along the Mediterranean in many places; if you realise, for the sake of example, the great development in the consumption of foreign meat in Italy during the last two years, you will realise that if only you could get sufficient combination and sufficient organisation between the fishermen of this country and the Italian markets, there is a real opening so far as those markets are concerned. I quite realise that what we want to get into those markets is not merely the second-class type of fish, but also a very large amount of the very best fish from this country. I want to see the Government develop the whole of the fishing industry, so that our trawlers can take a very much more prominent share in the markets of Europe. In passing, I would like to render a tribute to the very fine work which has been done by the Foreign Office in connection with the fishing industry in many ways. I would like to render a real tribute for what they did for our fishermen in a time of difficulty, for instance in Iceland, 12 months ago. All that I want, and all that the fishing industry, I think, want, is that the Foreign Office should continue that work as far as they possibly can.
I would like to draw attention to a real difficulty in the industry. There is not a great amount of unemployment in the industry, and at the same time there is a very great lack of young people coming into the industry. Practically, at the present time, there is no system
of apprenticeship at all. I cannot see why the Minister of Labour should not use his influence and his help. An example was given not very long ago by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Sir W. Sugden). It was pointed out that in one area there is a great shortage of employment for the men in the shipyards, and at the same time you have, as far as this industry is concerned, a need in many places for many boats, and boats of a larger type, so that they can go further a field. Surely it might be worth the while of the Minister of Labour to see whether, by means of trade facilities, or some other use of his powers, he could not do something to help develop the industry in this way. Again, it might be worth while for the Ministry of Education to see whether they on their side could not do something. I have had some realisation of the immense power and the immense amount of work which can be done by the National Union of Teachers. Surely it might be possible for the President of the Board of Education to call to a private conference some of the teachers who have the greatest knowledge of our fishing districts, and ask them if they cannot hammer out some scheme for increased help in education so far as the children of the fishing villages are concerned. I know very well that Hull and Grimsby have extraordinarily fine technical schools for the development of the fishing industry. By getting a good type of man, and real keenness for this work, I believe the industry can be helped very much if the President of the Board of Education will take his full share in the development.
I see that we have got with us to-night the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Transport. There are two or three points which I should like to bring to his notice. One of my friends will, I think, draw his attention to a matter of very grave importance so far as the industry is concerned, namely, the question of railway rates. Many men are very, very doubtful of what their position is going to be in a few years' time so far as their best markets are concerned. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has also to deal with the roads of this country. He can do a very great deal to develop some of our rather scattered fishing districts by the develop-
ment of the road system. I would say quite clearly that I know an instance in Cornwall where a better road was made to a rather large fishing port called Mevagissey. The help of the Ministry has been of immense benefit in opening up a very great deal that fishing district at the present time. I want to see him advance and to use his powers so far as he possibly can to help these small, scattered, isolated districts right around the coasts of our country.
I have given an instance of the South Coast of Cornwall, which has nothing to do with my constituency in any way, and I am going to give another instance of a similar thing which might be done, say, for instance at Port Isaac, where I have equally as little connection with the place as in the first instance. I am giving a few illustrations of what might be done by the Ministry of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In moving this resolution to-night and in drawing the attention of the various Ministries and those representing them to this point, I have done so because I am firmly convinced that when you have got an industry like this scattered around the whole of the island, an industry which has provided your country with many of your best sailors from time immemorial, an industry which is bearing its shares—and a very large share—in feeding our population both during the War and at the present time, then surely it is worth while on the part of the House of Commons to spend some three hours once a year considering, the matter? It is the only opportunity for practical purposes that we get for dealing with this matter, in putting it before the Government, and in asking the Government to realise that it is from this industry that you draw a very large portion of your merchant seamen; that it is from this industry you draw many of your best men in the Navy. Realising what they have done, realising how much this industry has stood for in the past, may we not ask the House of Commons to, at any rate, urge upon the Government to-day to do their best wherever they can to hold out a helping hand to this industry? We also want the Government to realise that by keeping this industry going they are finding employment and finding homes for one of the finest portions of the whole of the British race to-day.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like, in the first place, to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Resolution on his very ingenious attempt to have a Front Bench here this evening. He has succeeded in getting, not only Members on the Front Government Bench, but Members on the Front Opposition Bench as well. I am delighted to see on the Front Government Bench the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. I want before I proceed to deal with other matters to thank him and congratulate him on what he has tried to do for the fishing industry in the way of developing the export trade. We have not yet had very much success to show for the efforts that have been made, but I am confident of this: that good will come out of the work that has been done by his Department, and that probably before very long a very prosperous trade will be carried on between this country and the countries along the Mediterranean.
I am a representative of what are known as the deep sea fishermen in this House, and though the Mover of this Motion spoke in general terms he seemed to some extent to represent what are known as the inshore fishermen. I wish to confirm the statement he made that this industry is the sixth largest in the country. It employs, directly and indirectly, 264,000 men. "About one-fortieth of the population of Great Britain depend upon fishing for a livelihood. I wish to appeal to my hon. Friends who represent the miners to help us, because we are very good customers to the mineowners, and therefore help to provide work for the miners. The coal consumed by our steam fishing vessels provides whole-time employment for 9,000 miners for every working day of the year. The deep-sea fishermen, on whose behalf I am speaking this evening, are responsible for 80 per cent. of the fish landed on the shores. The range of their operations is out in the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, Far North to Iceland, Faroe, North Cape into the White Sea, and then down to the South into the Bay of Biscay and as far as Morocco. They range over all these areas to bring food to the people of this country.
In 1925 the total of fish landed in England and Wales—this does not include Scotland—was 13,500,000 cwts., the value
of which was £14,750,000. My own constituency of Grimsby were responsible for something like 25 per cent. of the total. I have worked out figures of the production per man, which show that every man employed in the industry earns £634 per head per year. That is taking the value of the fish landed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, all fishermen are not dissatisfied! It was £634 per head per year. Compare that with agriculture, which shows £254 per head! So we of the fishing industry claim that as regards the productivity per man we stand very high. In respect to the War work of the fishermen, I want to mention just this to the House, because I want the sympathy of the House with me in this question. Let me quote a gallant admiral, who, speaking on this point, said:
Fisheries are the nursery of men inured to hardship and danger, bred to seamanlike qualities, resourceful, daring, self-reliant.
That is true of the British fisherman as I know him. During the War period 3,000 steam trawlers directed by the Navy were engaged. Fifty thousand of our best men were drafted into the Navy. The older men and boys carried on the fishing during that War period amidst all the great dangers of mines and submarines to see that this country had a food supply. We lost 672 fishing vessels by submarines and mines and many gallant men. Many personal friends of my own laid down their lives for you in trying to bring these foodstuffs to the country.
What they are asking for is this: We are not asking for subsidies or anything of that sort. We do ask the Government that they should foster in every way possible this very valuable asset of the nation's industrial welfare. We want so far as we are concerned a strict adherence and recognition by all nationals of the three-mile limit. The difficulty in this matter which we have at the moment are with Russia and Norway. On this question what we ask for is fair-play countries. A very eminent international authority said:
Freedom of the seas, if it means anything, means that each Government will secure for its own nationals freedom to pass on their lawful occasions in all waters outside territorial limits, with freedom to fish those waters.
That is what we of the fishing industry claim. On this question I have been
asked to submit a statement forwarded to me by the British Trawlers' Federation. It is a matter to which they and the fishermen attach great importance:
The exclusive fishery limits claimed by various Governments and authorities have a very serious effect on the interests of the British trawling industry and the British nation. Norway claims exclusive fishery rights in all waters inside the limit of four miles measured from the outermost rocks or islands, including the large fjords around her coasts. This is contrary to general usage between other maritime nations, and His Majesty's Government should be urged to secure at the earliest practicable date an understanding with Norway providing for the exclusive fishery limits of that country being confined to the limits recognised by other nations, namely, within three miles of low water mark of her coasts, and inside bays or fjords between the line drawn between the point where a bay or fjord is not more than 10 miles wide. This condition applies equally to the claims of Ireland and also Scotland in the instances of Moray Firth and the Firth of Clyde. In fact, it is most essential that Great Britain should conform to the recognition of three-mile territorial limits for her own fishing industry, so that we can, with all greater success, insist on other nations imposing only similar restrictions.
I hope the Minister has made a note of that, and I hope that in his reply he will refer to it. It has been shown by figures which have been quoted that 94 per cent. of the catch of fish landed in this country comes from what are known as international seas, and the preservation of the three miles' territorial limit is of vast importance to this country, and I hope the Government will carefully watch and safeguard the rights of British fishermen.
Another point to which I wish to call attention in the interests of deep sea-fishermen is the harbour dues and charges in Iceland. We submit that they are excessive, and I will give some recent examples of how they affect our people. The Hull trawler "Drypool," wishing to land a sick man—not to go into harbour, but going only inside a headland—had to pay for getting that man in, and taking him out, a sum equal to £20 in British money. Of that sum, 50s. was the doctor's charge. The Grimsby vessel "Abronias" was running short of yeast for bread making, and the skipper decided to call at the Westerman Isles to get a supply of baking powder to carry on till he had reached his home port, and because he went inside the harbour he had to pay a
total sum of £14 19s. 5d., of which 18s. 4d. was for the baking powder, and the rest for harbour charges. Then there was the case of the "Dargle," a Grimsby boat, which had to land a man who was sick. Her bill came to £19 16s. 8d.
As I had been requested to raise this question, I thought I would find out how our charges compared with these. I wrote for the particulars, and this is what I am told. If a foreign fishing vessel goes into the River Humber for the purpose of putting ashore a member of the crew for medical or surgical treatment, I am informed that the only dues and charges which would be imposed are the shipping dues payable to the Humber Conservancy Board towards the cost of lighting and marking the river channel, amounting to from 1s. 3d. to 2s. 6d. per vessel per visit. No charge would be levied by the dock company, nor would there be any customs or sanitary clearances. A charge of 7s. 6d. to 20s. would be made by the tug employed in conveying the man from the fishing vessel to the dock, the charge varying according to the size of the tug engaged. If the fishing vessel came alongside the piers at either the fish dock or the royal dock basin, no charge would be levied by the dock company, and the cost of the tug would therefore be saved. I understand that the harbour dues imposed by the Norwegian Government are equally severe as those of Iceland. It may not sound very important to Members that a trawler should have to pay £15 for landing a man, but as this occurs on many occasions, and as our charges are so much lower, we feel that representations ought to be made to the Icelandic authorities on the point.
Again, we have a complaint as regards the Icelandic fishery laws, and here again I shall have to trouble the House to allow me to read the considered opinion of those who have gone carefully into the question and have asked me to bring it up:
Whilst it is recognised that the Danish or Icelandic Governments have a right to make laws in the interests of their own nationals, we must protest against the harsh manner in which many of them are interpreted, particularly the laws requiring the unshackling and stowing away of trawling gear when the vessels enter territorial waters. In many instances it is practically impossible to comply with the law without endangering the life or limbs of the crew, owing to the nature of the weather. Further, it not infrequently
occurs that when a vessel fishing outside territorial waters is shooting or hauling her gear, accidents arise which cause serious injury to members of the crew, necessitating immediate surgical attention, and vital time is lost in unshackling and stowing the gear before the vessel enters territorial waters to seek the medical aid so urgently desired. These remarks will also apply to Norway. British fishing vessels are not allowed to land their fish in Iceland except under special circumstances, but it is understood that modifications of the law covering this point in favour of the Norwegian fishing industry have been made. Under the Treaty with Denmark, Great Britain was to have treatment equal to that meted out to other nations.
I am asking the Minister to take note of this and to see that the provisions of the Treaty are rightly upheld. We say that under that Treaty we have just as much right to land our catch in Iceland as the Norwegians if the concession be made to them. If there is a bar against all other nations we cannot complain, but as we have that agreement we feel that attention ought to be drawn to the matter.
Another subject which has been attracting a good deal of notice throughout the country during the last few weeks is the landing of fish from German trawlers in British ports. Whilst there is a great diversity of opinion amongst men in the ports themselves as to whether we ought to allow this fish to be landed or not, I feel it is my duty, as representing a port where they have had some little difficulty over the matter to put the case fairly and squarely before the House to-night. It has been said that what we want in this country is a strong British fishing fleet. As I have pointed out, and as was evidenced during the late War, it is well to remember that it was due to the Government's good fortune in being able to commandeer this invaluable, efficient, and easily adaptable auxiliary service that the sea trade routes round these islands, and in many other valuable places, were kept open and navigable, due to a courageous obstinacy and patience unsurpassed in war. But for this potent fact it is within the bounds of possibility, and in fact quite probable, according to many experts, that the nation might have been starved into submission. It is, therefore, the duty of this or any Government to encourage this industry to a state of high efficiency
and progress, for on it depends, in a great measure, the food of the people. Everything that can reasonably he done to foster, safeguard and encourage its expansion and development both with regard to ships or its magnificent personnel is, apart from its advantage to the industry itself, and those trades—and they are many—dependent upon it, a benefit and an additional safeguard to the nation as a whole. Therefore, the British Trawlers Federation wish to state that, in their opinion, it is nothing else than a national misfortune that this industry should be faced with an invasion of German trawlers manned by crews whose rates of pay are less than half those paid to British fishermen. Against such a disparity of costs there are only two alternatives; one is to let it continue when the fishing companies and fleets will be faced with losses due to the extra running costs which will most surely set up a shrinkage in place of the necessary expansion or the crews will have to accept a reduction in their wages bringing them below the recognised standard of living in this country, which is unthinkable.
My second point is that the Government should see that this unfair competition is not permitted unless the wages paid by the foreign companies are made the same as those paid by British companies. If this were done, the fishing industry would be satisfied, because they would realise that they were having fair competition if the German owners were paying the same rates of wages. Those engaged in the fishing industry in this country say that they are not afraid of competition, but they cannot compete against sweated labour. I want to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that as regards the landing of German fish there is a section of the trade which rather welcomes such fish into the market. You have the men who are engaged in the salting of cod for export trade, some of our fish curers and the fish dock labourers, and they all welcome it because it means additional employment for them. I submit that it would be well if the industry could come to some reasonable agreement on this very vexed question. As the representative of this industry, I feel it is my duty to represent the trade as a whole, and I should find my task very much easier if
these people could make up their mind exactly what they want.
I want to say a word or two about the provision of an exploration vessel which I mentioned last year, and on that occasion we got a sort of half promise that we were going to get such a vessel. What the industry wants to-day is a vessel equipped for exploration work. We are spending now £27,625 a year on research work, and that work undoubtedly has been of the greatest value to the trade up to a point, but the practical men in the trade now say that that work has served its purpose and what we need most now is an exploration vessel that can look out for new fishing grounds for our men to carry on their vocation. At present our fishermen have to go further and further afield to catch the fish, and it is very difficult for the private owners of vessels to provide any expedition for exploration work, and we feel that it is the duty of the Government to step in.
We do not want any subsidies, but we want a little assistance. Last year I put a proposition before the Minister in which I stated that certain owners in Grimsby were prepared to put their ships at the disposal of the Ministry, including crews and gear, provided the Ministry would put on board a scientific officer and guarantee them against any loss. It would not have amounted to more than a few hundred pounds, and it might have resulted in the discovery of new fishing grounds, which would have been of great value to the industry and would have constituted a great asset to the nation. I hope the Minister will have something to say on that point when he replies.
9.0 P.M.
There is another matter I wish to bring forward, and it is that I think we should be allowed to imitate Scotland and have a Central Fishery Board. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I want us to do something on the same lines as the Scottish Fishery Board. In England and Wales we are ruled by 12 district committees, who work independently of each other, and we feel that the system in Scotland is the better way, because it provides a central authority. The Royal Commission Report of some years ago recommended:
That a central authority should be appointed to supervise and control the
fisheries of Britain if not that of the United Kingdom.
The industry are asking for direct representation by a Parliamentary Secretary being appointed to assist the Minister of Agriculture in this particular work of the fishing industry. We feel that the great Department of Agriculture with which the Minister has to deal is quite sufficient for him to deal with, and there is room and scope for a Parliamentary Secretary to devote his whole time to the fishing industry. Of course, we recognise the good work which has been done by former Ministers of Agriculture, and I wish to pay a special tribute to the late Minister of Agriculture, who took a great interest in the fishing industry. I also wish to say that, although the present holder of the office has only held it a very short time, he has already shown that he takes a great interest in the fishing industry. But even a Minister finds that there are only 24 hours in a day, and he must have some little time for sleep, and it is our opinion that there is more work in his Department than one man can manage, and there should be another appointed to help him to deal with the fishing industry.
There is another suggestion which I think is one of real value to the fishing industry, and it is that there should be an advertising campaign to convince the people that it is in their best interests to "eat more fish." We want a campaign on the same lines as the "eat more fruit" campaign. On this point I would like to quote the opinion of Sir James Crichton-Browne, who says:
The harvest of the sea not less than that of the land is wholesome food for all, and cheap and sustaining food for those who have to practise economy. It cannot be too strongly insisted on that, for working people of all classes—those who work with their heads, as well as those who work with their hands—fish is an economical source of the energy necessary to enable them to carry on their work, and that for children and young persons it furnishes the very stuff that is needed to enable them to grow healthy and strong.
We are going to start that "eat more fish" campaign right now in the House. Another question I have been asked to mention is that, as far as the catching side of the industry is concerned, they would welcome an inquiry by the Food Council. Many letters have appeared in the Press, and much talk has been indulged in about the price of fish, but
from the catching side we wish to make it perfectly plain that we do not fear any inquiry into the matter, and we should be glad to have it taken up.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I trust we shall hear from the Minister something hopeful to-night as to the way in which he can help us, for the Government can, if they will, without the expenditure of a great deal of money, assist in fostering the industry. We can point to other countries, like France, Germany, Denmark and Holland, which do render financial assistance to their fishing industries, in some cases by way of loans, bonuses and definite grants, and, in some cases, by tariffs on the fish that comes in from other countries. We do not go so far as to ask for any of these things that are given in these foreign -countries, but we do ask that these little things which we have pointed out, and which will be pointed out by others in the course of this Debate, should receive the close attention of the Minister and that the Government should do all that they possibly can to help to foster this great industry in the interests of the British Navy and in the interests of the supply of good, wholesome food for the people of this country.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: We on this side should not, perhaps, have ventured to pass implied strictures on quite so many Departments as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Motion has suggested, but, taking it altogether, we think his Motion is excellent, as its object is one which we enthusiastically support. I do not know that there is really very much material for party warfare in the subject of our fisheries, but what the subject lacks in material for the game it makes up in romance and in the pleasure it gives to all of us, or, at any rate, I hope to most of us, to think about fishing or fish in any form. Speaking for myself, few Debates give me more pleasure than those in which I have taken part on this subject, for we are really dealing with a neglected subject, but one that is of great importance. We on these benches view the matter in the same manner in which we view agriculture. We are enthusiastic for research and for the application of knowledge in any way that is possible; we are for the utmost possible utilisation of national resources—and in this case that is not hampered, fortunately, by
quite so many difficulties as in the case of agriculture; and, thirdly, we want to apply to those who are engaged in the industry the highest possible standard of life.
This Motion long as it is, does not, in my opinion, cover the ground. There are some other reforms and some other points which I should like to urge, and I will come in a minute to two of them which I think are of prime importance. One is in regard to marketing, and the other is not mentioned specifically in the Motion, but is, in my judgment, of great importance, and that is the matter of our fresh-water fisheries, and the enormous opportunities for recreation and pleasure which our working classes lose now by the great neglect of the use of our fresh-water rivers for angling. It may be said on the other side that we Labour people have been in office—why did not we do these things? I should like to say at once that, in the short time we had, we did contribute to the marketing problem, and the statistics show what happened in the great jump in the export of fish to Russia in 1924. But there is another matter, in regard to prices, upon which I want to dwell. We are very much in want of more facts on the subject of the fish market, and I hope the Minister will agree with me that the methods applied to the question of food prices by the Linlithgow Committee might very well be applied to the fish market. There is a very excessive spread in the price of fish, and we do not know all the conditions which might be met by action.
With regard to the fresh-water fisheries, if I am asked what I would have done had I had a majority such as the right hon. Gentleman has to carry out what he wants, I would like to see powers for public bodies to acquire angling rights on convenient rivers, so as to give to the working classes, to the masses of the people, a better chance of recreating themselves. I do not know whether even my Liberal friends would have helped us to put any measures of this kind into force, but certainly we should have failed to carry anything of that kind even if we had had the time. When we view this general question of fisheries, comparing it with our view of agriculture, I am always reminded of Sir Horace Plunkett's classification of the three aspects into which the question might be
divided, namely, better production, better marketing—better business, as he calls it—and better living. To take, first of all, the question of production, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has rightly pointed to the very great magnitude of the interests involved, and has dealt with research and regulation.
The really important thing in the Fisheries Department is research. Its main pre-occupation is with questions of that kind. It is said that happy is the country which has no history, and happy is the Department which is not constantly the subject of contentious debate. But, though it may be happy for the Fisheries Department to pursue research about which there is no dispute, we should be a great deal happier if we knew more about that research, and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity of telling the House some of the entrancing facts which are brought to the knowledge of the Fisheries Research Department. I strongly recommend a visit to those places where the Department carries on research. To take my own Division alone, some extraordinarily interesting things have quite lately been discovered in regard to the question whether fisheries are injured by terns, and, again, how they can be saved from the depredations of seals. But the Minister has access to a great deal more information than I have, and, if he is willing to tell us something about these matters, his speech will be the most interesting that I have heard from the Government Bench.
Regulation is the other side of research. Research leads to regulation, and what is of vital importance is that, in the measures recommended by the Council for the Exploration of the Sea, we as a country should not be behind, but in front, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how we are prepared to support the proposal, although Members may be inclined to scoff at it, for the closing of fishing grounds, which is really of vital importance for the improvement of the deep sea fisheries. Anyhow, we are all for the utilisation of knowledge of that kind. An illustration of the extraordinarily interesting things which are found in connection with the business of fisheries regulation is the use of aero-
planes, for example, to spot shoals of herrings, and the question how far the Navy is used for helping in this economic matter is one of great interest, upon which the Minister might find time to dwell. The unsatisfactory side of production is that the quantity produced is, I believe, not equal now to the quantity produced pre-War, and yet at the same time you have resources where, if the supply is not inexhaustible, at least the law of diminishing returns applies in a very slight degree compared with agriculture. At any rate any increased demand which the country is likely to make will be readily met by the fishing industry and full advantage can be taken of any market.
We come now to the marketing side. I remember saying in a Debate we had two-years ago that we should look in that matter to the double operation of cooperative societies and municipal trading to remove some of the very great losses that undoubtedly occur in marketing. It cannot be satisfactory that there should be, to the extent there is now the use of fish for manure, and it can hardly be an economic thing in any degree that fish should be positively dumped into the sea as it largely is now. This is where cooperative or municipal marketing might come in, but if we cannot expect much help in that direction now, is there not something that might be done for making our existing markets on their present lines more efficient than they are? I paid a visit to Billingsgate the other day and, besides picking up some additions to my vocabulary, I observed the extraordinary handicap that exists there in the congested condition of that market.
The various stages of bringing the fish, getting the stacks of boxes away, and transferring the fish to the fishmongers' carts are hampered by the fact that there is no means of driving the fish direct from the market to the fishmongers, and you have that army of fish porters carrying fish up a steep hill in a dense crowd. A policeman to whom I talked told me the congestion was such that when he was put on the main point in Lower Thames Street, after having been there a short time, the worry was such that he lost a stone in weight. This is not, of course, the direct business of the Department, but can it not use its powers to make suggestions to the bodies in control of the great fish markets, and when
you have got to the point where the fish brought to that market is only to a fractional extent brought by water, and the vast bulk of it is brought from the North by train, there may be very great economies possible?
There is the deplorable fact, already alluded to by the hon. Member for Grimsby, of the very deficient consumption of fish in this country. That is partly a matter of English methods of cooking. If the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department were willing, he could tell us some very interesting things on that point, but it is seriously true that there ought to be on a large scale an "Eat-more-fish" campaign, and I do not see why the Ministry of Health should not take some part in directing the attention of the public to that. It is quite as important as in the case of the marketing of fruit, and it would be a great national economy besides. On these things I trust he will use what powers he has, and it is perfectly correct, as the Mover said, that the railways have a great deal to improve in their treatment of fish supplies. But in the main, I think, the definite proposal to the Minister to think over the appointment of a Linlithgow Committee to deal with the whole question of marketing might produce great results.
In regard to the foreign trade, I think it amounted to over £8,000,000 last year. The German trade, happily, is now actually more than pre-War, but the greatest buyers, take them for their size, are the Baltic States and Russia. The Baltic trade was 41 per cent. of our total trade. Hon. Members on the other side raise a laugh when the question of Russia and Russian trade is brought forward, but it is a perfectly serious point. The trade with Russia jumped prodigiously in 1924, and not only so, but the price the Russians paid was an extraordinarily high price. It was as 18s. 1d. to a general average of 15s. 11d., and the Russian trade—I do not mean the Baltic States, but Russia strictly—was multiplied more times than I can now calculate in one year, and constantly you come on passages in the Ministry's Report where the vast possibilities of the Russian trade is dwelt upon. There is no gain-saying that. In 1924 there was a general expectation in Russia that trade was going to be put on a normal footing with us,
and a commercial treaty was signed. The fishery interest went out of their way to declare that it was an extraordinarily beneficial arrangement for them. The White Sea Agreement was one that they were extremely anxious to see carried out, and it was a severe blow to our fishery trade that it was not realised. The whole treaty was rejected. That is a point that cannot be separated from the general question of fishery exports. Why is the Government not ready to cultivate trade with Russia in this very definite opening? Why are there not credits granted for export to Russia? We are depriving our own people of a means of livelihood which might be considerable, and it is a test question for Conservative advocates of fishery interests, why are they opposed to taking advantage of a potential market which they might be creating for the benefit of our people?
In the third sphere, what Sir Horace Plunket calls "better living," there is the question of the workers in the fleets, the dangerous life they lead, and the very considerable number of casualties, and regulations for their safety and comfort are very important indeed. The inshore fisheries, however, are more closely a matter for the Minister of Fisheries. I hope he is giving his attention to the creation of harbour boards in inshore fishing places, such as, for instance, I think has been, or is going to be, done in the case of Hope Cove in Devonshire. That kind of thing is really very important because, as I know on the Norfolk coast, the fishermen are very much hampered by inability to get equipped. It needs much co-operation to put up shelters without any organisation and means of joint expenditure. There is a great deal that might be done, for instance, now that motors are coming in in the inshore fishermen's boats, by way of supplying windlasses, but, as I know, in some cases it is a very difficult thing to arrange unless some sort of authority can be set up or some sort of co-operative society established which enables them to get the windlasses. The number of men concerned in these things is very large. You have, as we have heard, a vast number of men in the industry or allied to it.
I want to refer, in conclusion, to another matter affecting a vast number of people, to which I briefly alluded at the
beginning. The Minister is responsible, not only for sea fisheries, but for fresh water fisheries, and in 1923 an Act was passed which was intended to make a beginning in bringing our freshwater fishery potentialities into use. The recreation, health and happiness of the people are involved to a vast extent. I suppose no country with industry developed as ours is would have allowed its rivers to get ruined to the extent that ours are. I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that possibly 500,000 men are directly interested in the provision of angling facilities; indeed, I have heard it computed that 600,000 men are actually members of angling societies. There are many of us who are enthusiastic fishers, but who do not belong to any society. Here you have a matter affecting the provision of recreation for a vast number of people who cannot afford an expensive recreation of any kind. In other countries, where the streams for the most part belong to some public authority, it is very easy to get a ticket and a day's fishing for a trivial expense. Here it is very rare for the man with humble means to be able to get any fishing at all. One may prophesy that it will not be many decades and certainly not many generations before shooting and hunting are looked back on as interesting memories, as we look back on the sports which our grandfathers thought quite essential and permanent, like cockfighting, but I rather think that angling is on a different footing, and is to vast numbers of people a most valuable recreation. Anyhow I would like to call attention to what is said on the cleansing of our rivers in the Report made to the Minister last year. The Report runs:
This problem concerns everybody who has the general well-being of the community at heart, and the promotion of the healthy sport of angling is well worthy of support. But, our rivers ought to be something more than mere reservoirs of fish or sources of water supply. Clean rivers and streams are an inspiration not only to those who dwell on their banks and seek recreation in boating and bathing, but also to dwellers in distant towns who may be attracted to the more genial surroundings afforded by sights and scenes of beauty.
Those are very true words which cannot be improved on, and I hope that the Minister will use his powers to assist in the creation of fishery boards and the encouragement of the work of anti-
pollution authorities, and will do all he can to give us cleaner rivers, and so confer a benefit on vast numbers of our people.

Major HARVEY: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the second word "the," and to add instead thereof the words
whole Government should combine to develop the ancient and important industry of fishing.
To make the Motion perfectly clear, I think it would be far simpler if a great many of the words included in it, as moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), were omitted, and if it read in the way it would read if my Amendment were accepted. In that case it would read:
In the opinion of this House the whole Government should combine to develop the ancient and important industry of fishing.
I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the right hon. Member the late Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I feel certain he will agree with me that perhaps it might have been better if this Motion had been put down in a somewhat simpler manner and in the form in which it would read if my Amendment were accepted, because I think he said it might have been better if less strictures were passed on the various Government Departments.

Mr. BUXTON: We might not have proposed that form of words.

Major HARVEY: I understood him to say the less the better. I am not going to follow him into the question of fresh water fishing, and I do not propose to talk about trawlers. I am not qualified to talk on that subject. With regard, however, to the Motion moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay, I would like him first of all clearly to understand that it is in no spirit of animosity that I move this Amendment. I have had very cordial relations with the hon. and gallant Member for a great many years, and I can assure him—and the House will understand it—that there is no spirit of animosity involved, for the Division for which he sits is bounded on one side by the sea and is bounded on the other side entirely by the Division which I have the honour to represent. There
is one thing mentioned here, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should do more to encourage efficient harbours. We have heard of one particular instance, the creation of such a harbour at Hope Cove, and various Ministers of the Crown are taking very great interest in these harbours and are playing their part in assisting the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in that perhaps most difficult task of looking after fisheries which, in the minds of most people, is a subsidiary part of his task as Minister of Agriculture. I think, perhaps, if we mentioned no names of any Minister, either of Education or anybody else, we might feel we had omitted none. If we omitted the whole lot we shall feel that, in the Amendment I am moving, the whole lot are included, and for that reason I move the Amendment in this form.
There is a matter which is of a rather more domestic nature, as far as I am concerned, because there are a great many people included in that industry in the constituency I have the honour to represent, namely, the inshore fishermen, the longshore fishermen and the people who carry on crab-pot fishing. In my constituency there is a place, namely Start Bay, and I do not think it is the only place of that sort along the coast of this country. There are large numbers of men and women there who go in for the industry of crab-pot fishing and live entirely and exclusively by that sort of fishing. They have neither the means nor the inclination to go far out to sea and trawl, or to go in for the other kinds of fishing. These people are very seldom mentioned in a Debate of this kind. There are a very large number of these people along the coasts of Devonshire and Cornwall, and there must be an equally large number around the other coasts. As a general rule, when the Minister is speaking on fishing, these people escape notice. It appears to be the general idea that fishing is an industry engaged in by people who go to sea with steam or motor trawlers and that people who go in for luxury fish, such as the crab or the lobster, are neglected. I have a large number of these people in my constituency, and they feel that, occasionally, they are apt to be neglected by the Minister.
It has been said that Start Bay is a fish nursery. I do not argue whether
that is so or not. Start Bay was entirely closed to trawlers at one time, but subsequently one half, the northern half, was opened to trawlers, who were only allowed into it with permits, provided they left the southern half entirely alone. This was done for the reason that there were crab pots there, and that part of the bay was used as a fish nursery. Unfortunately, the line of demarcation between the northern and southern part of the bay has been frequently crossed by trawlers and, as a result, a very large number of fishermen and fisher-women have lost considerable sums of money and an enormous number of crab-pots. From December, 1924, to March, 1925, 85 crab-pots were lost by seven men in my constituency, and that during fine weather. As each crab-pot costs about 25s., this means a very considerable loss. One man lost all the crab-pots he had, and emigrated. Another also lost all his crab-pots, and his friends raised a subcription to put him on his feet again, and I believe that in a small way he is fishing now.
I do not say that these losses are entirely due to trawling. There are a large number of trawlers which pass up and down the coast into Start Bay to trawl for fish, and a great many crab-pots are lost in this way. Storms also account for many crab-pots. There are also a great number of yachts which cruise up and down the coast, and destroy crab-pots. Other ships also destroy crab-pots. It is, however, fair to say that 90 per cent. of the crab-pot losses are due to the depredations of the trawlers. The majority of the trawlers from the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Torquay are very averse to poaching expeditions in the southern parts of Start Bay, but a few of the trawler people are not quite so considerate.

Commander WILLIAMS: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will realise that most of these trawlers are foreigners, but they are lucky enough not to be caught. I am not sure that some of the others do not come from north of the Tweed.

Major HARVEY: I do not blame my hon. Friend's constituents entirely for these losses. I do not say that the whole of the 90 per cent. of the losses are caused by trawlers from Torquay.
The trawlers may come from north of the Tweed and elsewhere. If the Minister would clear some of the fishing beds which exist further out in the Channel and would destroy some of the wrecks which exist on these fishing banks, he would very considerably help the trawlers to earn a living by fishing these legitimate banks, and so prevent some of them from poaching in a place which is acknowledged by a great many people to be a fish nursery. It may be argued that it is impossible to do this, but I would urge him to do it if he possibly can, and to see that these banks which are known to be full of fish are cleared, so that the trawlers can go there and bring back a catch which will be of marketable value. If he would clear or mark these banks in some way so that the obstructions which now exist there should no longer destroy the trawls when they are put down, it would be very advantageous.
It is not generally known why these wrecks are there. During the War the Admiralty issued orders that all ships should hug the coast along that particular part. I think I am correct in saying that within 10 miles of Start Point there are no fewer than 170 wrecks just below the sea. This means a very difficult task for people who go there from all parts of the world to trawl. If the Resolution were curtailed as I suggest, it would be much better than to put upon the records something which does not coincide with our usual practice. It is not usual to pass strictures on any particular Minister or any body of Ministers. If my Amendment were accepted, it would avoid that, whilst the effect would be practically the same.

Mr. HAWKE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) that I do so in no hostile spirit to his Motion. There is much in his Motion that is useful, and perhaps necessary. I have had the opportunity of placing before two Government Departments one subject of interest to fishermen, namely, the imposition of the pilchard tax by the Italians on imported pilchards. I put that question to the Board of Trade, and I was passed on to the Foreign Office, so
far without result. I have also had the opportunity of taking a fishing question to the Ministry of Health. Therefore, I am in sympathy with the Motion. My reason for seconding the Amendment is that the Motion, carefully worded, though it is, is apt to emphasise the necessity for particular remedies by Departments, when I think we are all agreed that this industry is so important and so vital to the whole nation that it becomes a question for the Government in general rather than a particular Department or Departments. For that reason I am glad to second the Amendment. I know there are many Members some of whom, unlike myself, did not have an opportunity of speaking on this subject last year, who desire to speak to-night, and because of this, and also because I am much more interested in hearing what the Minister may have to say on the matter this evening than in any observations I may make myself, I propose to impose upon myself the self-denying ordinance of making but very few observations.
There are, however, one or two things I should like to say. We have travelled over many things to-night. We have had proposals for the institution of cookery classes, proposals for many other kinds of things, and I do not intend to follow hon. Members into these interesting objects of research. I represent men to whom the thought that each one of them represented £634 would be something more than a surprise. I have had no opportunity of making any calculation, but the money which most of the men in the extreme West of England expect to get is far less than £634. They are poor men, but they are capitalists. Every one of them who has a boat is a capitalist; every man who has a net is a capitalist; a fish hook is capital. But although they are capitalists they are in very poor circumstances, and if it were not for their frugality and sobriety I doubt how many of them could live. Some years ago—and this is what I want to say—the industry in that part of the world was in a very bad way, and it was rescued, some people think was saved from destruction, by the fact that the Government came forward with assistance in the form of a grant to supply the boats with motors.
I want to remind the Minister that the money advanced years ago to these men
has been practically returned in full, and as the assistance to fishermen must directly or indirectly be on the basis of money I suggest to the Minister that if it is the fact that the money loaned years ago has been returned in full, then it is a risk he might take again where it is necessary to make advances in the future. The boats which were then provided with motors have been working ever since on the seas. But motors will wear out, boats will wear out, and even men will wear out. There are young men coming along who, if we want to keep them going to sea, must be supplied with the wherewithal to do so. If they can be relied upon, having had a grant once, to earn the money to repay it, as well as provide for themselves, the Minister will be doing something to assist in creating the personnel of our Navy and the protection of our food supply. I hope he will consider whether he cannot have some inquiry into the need for such assistance to these men. I would remind him that this inquiry, I will not say was promised, but was suggested before this Parliament was elected. His predecessor in Office a year ago promised nothing in regard to this matter but to consider it. As we had many promises a year ago—I am quite sure they were intended to be carried out—I hope we may have some of them repeated this evening, and that some of them at least will reach fruition.

Mr. ROSE: I desire to give a somewhat general and qualified benediction on behalf of the majority of my colleagues on these benches to the very excellent and somewhat ambitious Motion now before the House. I noticed to-day at Victoria Station one of the new omnibuses—a two-decker. It did not strike me as being particularly secure. This Motion is a ten-decker, and I feel sure it has not been designed on the "safety first" principle. But after all, what does endear it to most of us on these benches is that it smacks a little of collectivism. It is not quite so Socialistic as most of the proposals with which we are familiar, particularly in the Socialist party, but still it has the flavour, and perhaps that is why we like it. I am disposed to think that boiled down it comes to this: It is a suggestion that "Government Gus" and "Whitehall Willy" shall operate together for the common benefit, instead of barking each other's shins in a
mad and insensate struggle for departmental priority. So far it seems to me to be good, but there are some things about it that are not quite so good.
A suggestion was made by the Seconder of the Motion, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) that what is wanted is another particular and specialised Ministry for looking after fishery, just like we have in Scotland. If you are going to reform the fishing industry at all the first thing you have to do is to abolish the Scottish Fishery Board, because it is about the least useful of all the many Ministries. What strikes me is this, that both the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion, and indeed the Proposer and Seconder of the Amendment, have overlooked the fact that the first difficulty is inherent in the industry itself. You can divide the fishing industry into at least six sections, every one of which is in open hostility against the other five. There are the trawl owners, the trawl fishermen, and the line fishermen—and I should like to clear away from the minds of hon. and right hon. Members what seems to them a difficulty. Line fishing is passing entirely away. In my own Division—I do not care to quote the parish pump at all, this is only an illustration—in Aberdeen, at a place called Footdee, colloquially known as Fittie, there used to be a colony of line fishermen. I do not believe there are half-a-dozen there now. If there are, they have ceased to be line fishermen. That sounds paradoxical. The line fishermen almost all round the coast have bought motor boats and go out with seine nets, which are far more destructive.

Mr. HAWKE: Long liners?

Mr. ROSE: There are sea-going boats, steamboats that go out with lines and have thousands of lines over. It is the ordinary inshore line-fisherman about whom I am talking, the man who has made all the dust about keeping the Moray Firth closed against our own fishermen while it is thrown open to foreigners—in their own interests and that of no others. A great deal too much importance is attached to the line-fishing industry. Apart from these there is the shore gang, the fish curers and the salesmen, and then the transport. I am almost tempted to add a seventh, the British public; but the British public is
always a negligible factor, so we will not bother with it. I would like to give an illustration. About two years ago there was a great deal of public concern and disturbance in reference to the landing of German catches in Aberdeen. It led up to a sort of lock-out or strike of skippers and mates, who forced all their subordinates out of work. I was asked to take up some attitude in that matter, and I inquired about it. I found that the whole industry in Aberdeen was just about split in half. The shore gang wanted the German trawlers encouraged, but the sea-going gang wanted them to be prohibited. So I said, "I am going to have nothing to do with it. Settle this business amongst yourselves, and I will then talk with you." They were so blindly furious about that that they actually mistook me for a certain Noble Lord, and confounded my identity with that of the Marquis of Aberdeen.
10.0 P.M.
You can get all the Government Departments that you like on this business, but you will find that the animosity and the jealousies inside the industry itself will negative and sterilise any efforts that any Government can make. We have heard something about research. If you are going to have research, I do not think that you ought to invest the authority for making it in Whitehall. There are many things in the fishing industry that can be cured. If employers are enlightened they will realise that the best way to increase production is to cheapen labour, and if they know anything at all they will know that there is only one way to cheapen labour, and that is by raising wages. The conditions under which fishermen live in most of our fishing ports are not merely a reproach to their employers, but a heavy reproach to the whole system under which we are living to-day. As far as we are concerned here, we believe that the fishing industry can take care of itself better than any Government Department can.
Another side of the question is this: We hear a lot of talk about the conservation of certain fishes and fishing places. I believe there is an international "confab" going on now about the projected or suggested closure of certain areas in the North Sea in order to conserve the growth and development of plaice. It is like all other international "confabs." A number of
people go there, not to see what they can do in the common interest, but to see how much they can "pinch" off anyone else. One of the suggestions made—I do not know whether our lot or the German lot or the Dutch lot or which of them made it, but I know it has been previously made—is to transport some millions of young plaice and dump them on the Dogger Bank. I do not know how it is to be done. I do not know whether every little plaice is to have a label put on it, or whether every one is to be put on its honour that it will not leave if it cannot find little crabs to eat. The idea of interfering with nature in the economy of the sea is the silliest thing that ever entered into the mind of man. Nature does all this, and always will. May I quote an opinion? It is the opinion of one of the greatest scientists of our time, Professor Macintosh. He says:
How different it is with the food fishes, with their pelagic (floating) eggs disseminated broadcast throughout the sea, their swarms of more or less invisible young, and the marvellous changes many undergo to maturity! Their whole life-history points to an endurance which all the efforts of man fail to shatter.
If you were to put out a million trawlers, trawling night and day for a year, they would not catch as many fish as other fishes devour in a quarter of an hour. If it were not so fish crushes would be frequent. Sturgeon crushes and salmon crushes have been known. Indeed, there is in the history of our own country the record of a herring crush on the coast of Fifeshire last century. The herrings were so plentiful and so massed together that they could not turn with the tide and were left on the shore, tons and tons of them. That being so, what in the world is the use of talking about trawling Regulations? Trawling has come to stay. It is machine fishing, and we are living in a machine-ruled age. All the trawlers that ever steamed will not make one single appreciable scrap of difference on the face of nature. I am all for reform, but the reform which I advocate is the freeing of the trawler from restrictions. I do not care whether or not they come inside the three-mile limit. As far as trawling is concerned they will do no harm. I believe there are military reasons against it, but there is no industrial reason and no social reason why
they should not be allowed to trawl anywhere. I would agree with the policy of letting everybody and anybody fish where they liked, when they liked and how they liked. You can trust to nature that no harm will be done to the population of the sea. There will be no shortage, and there never can be any shortage in the yield of fish.
We like this Resolution sufficiently well not to oppose it, and the Amendment seems to me to mean exactly the same thing as the Resolution. I do not think the terminology either of the Motion or the Amendment matters so much as the sense which lies within them both. We want to have something done for the fishing industry. We are particularly concerned—at least I am—with the poor people who work in it. I believe their difficulties could be very largely solved without any Government interference at all. I think their employers could do a great deal for them if they liked, but there seems to be an idea all round that the man who receives very low wages is a cheap man. It is not always so, and I am ready to endorse what hon. Members have said in reference to the character and value of the service which the fishermen of this country render. I know something of them, and I am quite disposed to add my testimony to every good thing that can be said about them. The mere expression of a pious opinion is not all that is necessary, and I join with hon. Members who have already spoken in asking the Minister to put some of these suggestions into practice, or if he cannot do so, to tell us what practical line the Government are likely to adopt to help us out of the present difficulty.
I know some of the suggestions which have been made are impossible, and I am glad to think some of them are impossible, but on the other hand, there is behind this Resolution and behind the Amendment also, the suggestion at least that an important industry can be helped by Government interference and aid, and that being so, I hope this Debate will lead to something more than a mere expression of opinion in this House to-night, something more than a hollow endorsement of what is more or less a sentiment. The sentiment of the Resolution however does the Mover and Seconder infinite credit, and I propose, as I think all my colleagues do, to give it the most sincere support.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not agree with all the last speaker has said, particularly with regard to inshore trawling, but there is a good deal of truth in many of his remarks. With one thing which he said I cordially agree, and that is as regards the difference between the Motion and the Amendment. With all due respect, the difference seems to be that between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The object of both is to ask the Government to concentrate attention on this ancient and important industry. It is, after all, the most ancient of all our industries. The old British lake dwellers were the first fishers in this country, and with their coracles and imperfect methods, they started an industry which has developed into one of enormous importance. It has been rightly called the fifth largest industry of this country, and it may surprise hon. Members to know that the value of the fish landed in Great Britain is over £20,000,000 a year. A huge fleet and a large army of men are engaged directly in the fishing, and reference has already been made to the number of side industries attached to fishing, such as that of coopers and so forth. There is no doubt this industry has not in the past, and is not to-day receiving the attention which it deserves. Therefore, we welcome an opportunity such as comes but infrequently, of drawing the attention of the House and the public to the importance of this industry to the nation.
There is one point to which I desire to make special reference. At the present moment, when there is a hunt for economies in all directions, I urge on the Government that their desire for economy should not lead them to circumscribe the activities of the Development Commission. That Commission has done a good deal—thought I think it might have done a good deal more—to assist in improving our fishing harbours. We know in Scotland how great is the need for improving many of our harbours. A very small amount was spent last year in this direction. I find that the sum spent last year in improving harbours was £3,190 by way of grant, and £6,404 by way of loan. I am aware there are various schemes under consideration which involve the expenditure of large sums, and I earnestly hope that the Government, in their desire for economy, will not be led into, what I and
many others regard as a false economy in cutting down the grants and loans made for improving fishing harbours. In my constituency there are two harbours of considerable importance concerning which schemes are at present before the Commission. The accommodation is inadequate and there is a great loss of fishing time as a result, as well as considerable damage to boats in the landing of the fish. Any attempt to economise in that direction would be a false economy indeed.
A reference has been made to the importance of finding new markets. I do not wish to go into that at length now, but I would like to refer to our old markets, and to ask the Government whether it would not be possible to enter into negotiations with some of the Baltic States to see if they cannot reduce the duties placed upon our herrings. The duties in Finland amount to something like 45s. a barrel, in Poland to 12s. a barrel, and in the Soviet Union they are rather less, about 9s. 6d. We all know that the herrings exported to Russia and the Baltic States are the food of the poor people, and the food of the poorest of the poor, and even a small duty placed on the import of herrings into those States must act very detrimentally on the amount consumed. Therefore, I would ask the Government whether they cannot direct their attention to endeavouring to get those duties reduced.
I should like to say a word with regard to Russia, and I am very sorry to have to refer to it again. It has only been slightly mentioned to-night, but I think it is my duty to do so. Why is it that the people who are particularly concerned in the herring industry are insistent in their demands for efforts to be made to open up the Russian market? They are the people who, we presume, understand their own business best. Every fishing port in Scotland, and every association connected with the herring industry, is asking the Government to direct their attention to this special object. It has been said that the Russian market is overstocked by the purchase of the 1924 catch. With reference to that, I would just like to point out what the figures are for the last three years as compared with the last three pre-War years, that is, taking pre-
War Russia and post-War Russia with the Baltic States, so as to make the figures comparable.
The exports from Great Britain in 1913 were 3,566,000 cwts., and in 1925, 1,638,000 cwts. From Scotland the difference is even greater than from Great Britain as a whole. From Scotland, in 1913, 619,000 barrels were exported to Russia, and in 1925 only 177,000 barrels. If you take the average over the three years 1911–13, there were exported from Great Britain 3,284,000 cwts. on an average, and in 1923ߝ25 an average of 2,182,000 cwts.; in other words, the present export is only two-thirds of the pre-War export, and it is that lost third that we are so anxious to recover, if possible. I am not prepared to say that the Government can do a great deal, but I think they can do something, and anything that they can do I think they ought to do. One thing which I can recommend that they should do is this, and that is that they should adopt a different attitude with regard to Russian trade from that which they have adopted in the past. The attitude which they have adopted in the past can only hinder, and not help, and I would earnestly ask the Government that they should alter that attitude into one that will lead eventually, I hope, to more amicable relations and to better trade relations following on that.
Finally, I wish to say a word or two with regard to illegal trawling. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I am afraid, is not here, though I see the Under-Secretary in his place, if anything is being done to give effect to the recommendations of Lord Mackenzie's Committee, which made a very close investigation of the question and a very valuable set of recommendations. The late Labour Government took the first step by improving the boats and the policing of the inshore waters, and endeavoured to stop the depredations of the trawlers. I cannot agree for a moment with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose), who said that inshore trawling did not do any damage. I am afraid we have only too much evidence of the damage that inshore trawling has done, for you get trawlers trawling over the ground over and over again, and they not only catch the immature fish, but destroy the breeding grounds. It is a very much
wider question than simply taking away the livelihood of the fishermen who happen to be living on the spot.
I would render every assistance that I can to the cry that has been started, and, I hope, will be taken up and re-echoed throughout the country—"Eat more fish." But before the country as a whole can eat more fish, fish must be cheaper, and I would like to emphasise the remarks that fell from the late Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as to the importance of the Linlithgow Committee extending their inquiry in that direction, and the desirability that exists for improving the transport of the fish from the sea to the consumer. When we realise how small an amount the fisherman receives for his fish, and what a large sum the consumer has to pay for the same fish, we all of us feel that there is something wrong. When you see profits or differences of 300, 400 or 500 per cent., there is obviously something wrong, and that is the direction in which the Government might exercise their energies with very great benefit to the industry, I am sure.
The late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain coined a phrase which has had very great vogue. He said he was teaching the country to "think imperially." Mr. Joseph Chamberlain did lead the country to think imperially in a way it had never thought before, but I am afraid that nowadays sometimes we are a bit inclined to overdo it when we see the Government prepared to spend £1,000,000 to market the produce of our overseas Dominions, and then we have to ask them what they are doing to help the markets in the products of this great fishing industry. I will conclude, having made the few remarks I have without elaborating them, with the hope that hon. Members who are about to follow me will impress upon the Government the need to concentrate their efforts on improving this industry.

Sir FRANK MEYER: In the course of his interesting and original speech, the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) gave the House a list of the various sections which compose the fishing industry, and I am sorry to say in that list there was one very notable omission. He omitted to refer to the drifters and the herring industry, and it is therefore a great source of satisfaction to me that I have the opportunity to-night of saying
a few words in this Debate on behalf of that industry, and as representing one of the most important centres of the herring fishing in the country. I say one of the most important. I might even have ventured to say the most important, if I had not seen present in the House my hon. Friend the Member for the neighbouring constituency of Lowestoft, and, in view of the fact that there has always been some little jealousy between Yarmouth and Lowestoft as to the supremacy of the herring fishery in England, I will not place my claims too high.
I will not detain the House at this late stage of the evening—because we want to hear what the Minister has to say in reply—by dilating once more on the importance of this industry in the matter of the production of food and the great services which have been rendered by the men who are employed in fishing for herrings. This is a subject of common agreement amongst all parties. I should like, however, before dealing with certain particular points in connection with the industry to re-echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and other speakers as to the importance of teaching the people of this country the value of fish as food. Everybody knows, everybody has heard, of the Yarmouth bloater. I do not know whether everybody has really eaten a Yarmouth bloater. They may have eaten a kind of imitation. If it is not out of order to do so, may I say to hon. Members that if they have not had the pleasure at any time of eating a Yarmouth bloater, if they will communicate with me during the next herring fishing season, I shall be delighted to see that they have a sample placed before them.
It is always difficult to suggest any particular remedy that may help an industry which has been going through such trying times as the fishing industry has of late, and in particular, so far as my knowledge extends, the herring fishery. I should like to call the attention of the Ministers to whom these matters have reference, to the increased difficulties and the greater burden upon those whose occupation lies in fishing for herrings. There are points which were raised last year which I am only going to touch upon in the briefest possible way. There is the question of the rate for coal. The railways have not yet granted to
ports like Yarmouth and Lowestoft the shipping rate for coal, In view of the heavy proportion which coal bears to the whole expense of the drifters, it would be an immense advantage to the industry if the railways would grant that concession. The railways also still demand prepayment of freights for fish. They do that in England, but not in Scotland. I have no desire to raise any ill-feeling between the two countries; I would only like to impress upon the Minister of Transport—and as he is not here I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture to convey it to him—that we should like him to use all his influence with the railway companies in this matter, to back us up in what we believe to be our legitimate demand that they should assist this industry by giving us more equitable terms both for the transport of coal and for the transport of fish.
One other point, and this concerns the Board of Trade. I do hope that when the Merchandise Marks Bill, which has been adumbrated, is brought before us, we shall see that it contains a provision that dried fish imported from abroad in boxes and cases will be marked with their origin just as, we understand, eggs and other produce are being now marked. I should like to bring that grievance before the President of the Board of Trade.
Then there are certain sins of omission which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, and to ask his assistance. I refer to certain burdens which have been placed upon the fishing industry, and which make its task very much more difficult than it has been in the past. New Regulations have been issued in regard to the lights which have to be carried by fishing vessels—I believe by all vessels. These Regulations may be necessary for ocean-going steamers, and they may be drawn up in the best interests of navigation, but they are going to entail upon the fishing industry very heavy expense and great difficulties. The new lamps which are provided for in the Instructions which I hold in my hand, and which come into force in 1927, are going to cost twice as much as the old lights. They are going to be twice as heavy. They are going to make it extremely difficult for those who are just struggling to keep their heads above water in this industry to bear the addi-
tional burden. It is not only a question of expense. I am assured by those who live and move in this industry, by the owners of boats, skippers, and members of the crews, that the extra weight of these lamps is going to be such that it will be positively dangerous, especially on some of the very small boats, drifters, in a rough sea. I appeal to the Minister to do what he can to see that drifters and small boats are exempted from those Regulations, as certain other boats, such as tugs and inshore boats, already are.
The next complaint is about a Clause in last year's Merchant Shipping Act, which lays it down that nobody under the age of 18 shall be employed as a fireman or trimmer. That may be necessary in the case of large ocean-going ships, but in the case of a drifter, which goes to sea for only 24 hours or so, it seems to me an unnecessary Regulation, which can only entail useless expense. It is laid down in the Regulations that if it be impossible to find anybody over the age of 18 to take the position of a fireman or a trimmer, two lads between the ages of 16 and 18 must be engaged. If anybody has been down the stokehold and the engine-room of a drifter, they will realise how ridiculous it is to apply that Regulation to such a small vessel.
Finally, I wish to refer to something which concerns very closely Yarmouth and Lowestoft, though I am not sure how far it affects other constituencies interested in the herring fishery, and that is the question of net menders. A Trade Board has recently been established to regulate their wages. They are largely home workers; the work is largely done by women in their own homes. No complaint of any kind has reached me since I have been connected with Yarmouth that their wages were unsatisfactory or insufficient, but owing to outside agitation an inquiry was demanded, and was granted by the Ministry of Labour, and a Trade Board has been set up. The wages have not yet been settled by that Board, but I must say clearly and definitely that if the wages to be laid down are considerably in excess of those paid in the past, and tend to discourage piecework, the only result will be that women who have been able to earn useful sums to augment the family income will simply lose their jobs altogether.
The remarks I have made hitherto have been, I believe, more or less uncontrover-
sial, but there is one other subject on which I feel that I must express my own opinion, and that is the question of granting Export Credits to Russia. A great many speeches on that subject have been made recently in this House. I think the speech which the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) made the other night threw a certain amount of cold water on the enthusiasm of some of those who had been so eagerly advocating the extension of the Export Credits system to Russia for herring exports. I wish to say at once that I am unalterably opposed to any—such proposal. I believe it to be economically unsound, and I believe it would be of no value whatsoever to the herring industry. What are the essentials which should be complied with before the Export Credits scheme is applied to any industry or any country? The first is that the purchaser should be commercially above suspicion. I do not want to deal with that point, because it is quite clear to the House what my view is, and it is not particular to the herring industry, but applies to the extension of the Export Credits scheme to trade as a whole with Russia. The second condition, an essential condition, is that it should not he possible to undertake the transaction without this assistance. Can it genuinely and seriously be said that Russia, with a credit of £15,000,000 in this country, is unable to expend the few hundred thousands necessary to impart the extra number of herrings which, would represent the difference between what she is now importing and what she used to import?
Moreover there is this distinction and it is a very important one. Whereas export credits may be justified for importing machinery, rails, and means of transport, the result of which may not be seen for some years, what justification can there be for using Export Credits for such things as herrings bought for immediate resale and distribution? Has it been seriously put forward that Russia cannot afford a few hundred thousand pounds to purchase the herrings when she is going to resell them to her own population? The reason why Russia is not doing the same amount of trade with us in herrings as she did before the War is that she has enormously increased her own fisheries. In the second place her people are largely impoverished and the transport system of Russia has com-
pletely broken down. Last July there were in Russia 18,000 tons of fish undistributed from the previous year's purchase, and there are now in Russia stocks of well over 100,000 tons and nearer 200,000 tons of fish waiting to be distributed.

Sir R. HAMILTON: From where does the hon. Member get his figures?

Sir F. MEYER: I do not think I am called upon to give that information at this juncture. That being the case, how would the export credits and the extension of that system to Russia assist the fishing industry in this country? I can quite understand why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite advocate such a thing, because on the question of Russia they seem to be blind to all the ordinary considerations which should apply to a reasonable business proposition. It astonishes me that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Templeton) and other hon. Members should have advocated the extension of these credits to Russia without properly studying the facts and realising all its implications. I again assert that never would I advocate such a scheme which violates every economic principle which is unsound and would not be beneficial to the fishing industry.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I should like to congratulate the Mover of this Resolution, not only on the very fertile Debate which it has produced but also on his remarkable originality in drafting his Motion, because he has indicted six Government Departments, namely, the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Education, the Board of Trade, and the Ministry of Health. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Motion has great discrimination, but I should like to ask why he has left out the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. In the case of his own constituency he complains that he was always given the answer of "the next Department," but that is inevitable because of our system of Government. The Ministry of Agriculture looks after the interests of the fisheries, but inevitably there are cases where the interests of fishermen come within the ambit of other Government Departments which have to
look after national interests in a particular service.
My hon. and gallant Friend regretted the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He referred to an answer which I gave the other day, in which I mentioned the small mobility of a certain class of fish, and he suggested that I was here to-night because I was less mobile than my right hon. colleague. Anyhow, I can assure him that I will pass on to all the other Ministries involved the various points that have been raised. Since the original Motion was moved, an alternative has been suggested, and, although the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) said it was practically indistinguishable, it has this advantage, that it expresses the view, I am sure, of the whole House as to the importance of helping the fishing industry, without criticising the action or inaction of Government Departments, which, owing to the exigencies of a Debate lasting only three hours, could not possibly be fully discussed. I think, however, that we have had a most practical Debate, in which, contrary to the tradition, anyhow, of fresh-water fishing, there has been a very little romancing, and I am quite sure we shall benefit by the very practical and useful proposals which have been brought forward. I have only time to deal briefly with a few of the points.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) raised the question of the varying limits of territorial waters, and specially mentioned Norway. Long negotiations have taken place on that subject, but I am afraid they have not been successful. I can, however, reassure my hon. Friend that the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and the Ministry responsible for fisheries, are all united on one matter, and that is that we are going to stand by the three-mile limit in this country. The question of the Moray Firth was raised. That is a matter which really affects my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health. The Moray Firth is, of course, a fishing ground of great importance to the inshore fishermen. It is a ground which at the present time, as I gather from my hon. and gallant Friend, is not very much visited by fishermen from other countries, and the question has been referred to the International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea as to what restrictions may be imposed. Meanwhile, I am told by my hon. and gallant Friend that better supervision has been ensured by the addition of a faster and more efficient police vessel, which protects the fisheries on the Scottish coast, and also two cruisers and two hydroplane carriers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) was concerned at the falling off of the catch since the War. I can reassure him that at present the results are most satisfactory, and in the last year the catch of trawl fish, which are the chief source of fish food in this country, has gone up by 12 per cent. as compared with the very good catch of 1913. Herrings are rather down, but on the whole the harvest of the sea last year has been extraordinarily good. The right hon. Gentleman was disturbed to think that fish was often used for such purposes as manure. I made inquiries on that subject, and also as to the allegation which I see in the Press that fish is sometimes dumped in the sea. I can find no confirmation of that statement. No doubt a certain amount of fish which is unfit for human consumption goes to the manure works, and a comparatively small quantity is thrown away because it is too small, but I do not believe there is any appreciable waste of fish which could be used for food purposes.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Major Harvey) raised the question of fishing in Start Bay. I understand this is a very old story about the trawlers and the crab pots. Last year we really had no complaints. On the question of the wrecks, which admittedly do great damage to the gear of the trawlers, it is not easy to see what can be done. If you begin to blow up the 170 wrecks which lie on the floor of the sea you will foul the fishing ground even more than if you left them alone. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) asked me about research. I can assure him and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) that research is not done, in the case of fishing, from Whitehall. It could not be done from Whitehall. It is done in England by my Department from three research centres. There is a station at Lowestoft, concerned chiefly with deep-sea fishing, a station at Conway, concerned with shell fish, and a station on the Upper Itchen, in Hampshire, concerned with freshwater fishery. The Lowestoft station is chiefly working in connection with the activities
which concentrate in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
The measures taken for the conservation of deep sea fish must be taken in non-territorial waters, and therefore they cannot be dealt with by any one nation separately. That is why we must have international agreements on this subject. Of course such agreements, if they are to be wise, must be based on thorough knowledge and on efficient research. I am only too well aware that there have been certain proposals for preventing the wasteful destruction of immature fish which are not altogether in accordance with the views of certain sections of the British fishing industry, but these proposals have been put forward as the result of research. We are not, of course, committed to them in detail and I do not think I really ought to say anything more about it to-night seeing that my Department are going to discuss them with those concerned during the next few days.
I do want to impress on the House the importance of this research work for the benefit of our fisheries. The Lowestoft station has really carried out very interesting researches into the life history, distribution, movements, and temperature conditions of plaice, herrings, cod and haddock. They have traced out their spawning time, the history of their eggs and their development, the food that they need, and the conditions of climate under which they can live. Of course, it is a new science, and I do not imagine anybody can complain if we have not yet got more definite results, but we are at least hopeful that we may be able to arrive at the causes of the fluctuations in the supply of fish.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk said that research might often lead to wise regulations. If those were not the actual words, that was the sense of what he said. Research can also help in the contrary sense to prevent unwise regulations. There was formerly a campaign againt certain activities of the trawlers. It was said that they were destroying by the attentions they were paying to certain areas of the sea bottom the production of young fish. Our researches have shown that the eggs of the most important fish and the food upon which they depend are to be found in the surface waters, and are not affected by the activities of the trawlers.
In regard to shellfish researches, we have begun chiefly on mussels. We have found the satisfactory way of cleansing mussels and making them absolutely safe from the danger of sewage. Oysters have proved more delicate, and seem much more susceptible to the effects of climate, but we are experimenting with them also. There are a good many very interesting and possibly productive experiments being carried out as to the breeding of that form of shellfish. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about winkles."] We have not gone into winkles. We shall reach that subject if the House continues its confidence in our research work. As to trawling, we are carrying out an important experiment as to the best form of mesh for the cod end, so as to catch the marketable fish and to spare the immature fish. If you consider the wonderful fertility of nature in the shape of a fish, the variation between fish which are practically length without breadth and fish of every shape to almost a perfect cube, it is really an extraordinary achievement that, if I am rightly informed, we are on the eve of finding a method of producing such a net as will let through the unsuitable kinds of fish life.
Researches have also been carried out by the Food Investigation Board of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The Fish Preservation Committee, who have sat under the chairmanship of one of the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, are going into the question of the handling, curing, and preservation of fish, and have been doing some very useful work in regard to the freezing of fish. They have published two very interesting Reports on the subject. They are also going into the question of canning and the by-products which can be made from fish, particularly the fish meal, which, besides being valuable food for stock, is very useful in certain foreign countries for sausage-making, and other products. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) raised the question of navigation lights. The Board of Trade have had their attention drawn to that matter and are giving sympathetic consideration to the representations which have been made. I would remind my hon. Friend that these matters are for the safety of fishermen. As to the age of stokers and trimmers, whatever may be the merits,
we cannot vary that without denouncing an international convention and amending an Act of Parliament.
I have not time to deal with any other subjects, but I wish to say that we appreciate the great importance of keeping the fishing industry in full efficiency. There is no industry in the country of greater value for national defence. The fishing industry is the training ground for our seamen, and it provides a ready-made reserve fleet for our mine-sweeping and anti-submarine work in time of war. The fishermen have a splendid record. More men per cent. were enrolled into the Forces from that industry during the War than from any other industry. I am glad to think that, owing to the price of coal at Grimsby, fishing is now doing better than a year ago. I think the whole House will welcome this Debate as a means of bringing before Parliament an industry which, as the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) said, is not asking for backsheesh, but has raised itself by its own efforts from the trough of post-War depression. It is an industry which has set a shining example of what can be done by enterprise in business, where co-partnership has become traditional and whore there are no artificial restrictions on a man's efforts, and nothing to prevent him from doing his best.

Mr. GROTRIAN: I am extremely glad to hear, representing as I do the second largest fishing port in the country, that the Minister means firmly to adhere to the three miles' limit. I hope he will keep the Foreign Office up to the mark as well. I am certain that if once you give way in any part of Europe you will have extreme pressure brought to bear upon you to give way in other parts.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 65, and extension of period for giving guarantees.)

Mr. DALTON: When the consideration of this Bill was interrupted at 8.15 I
was submitting to the Committee the principle that where the State gives a guarantee to a private enterprise it is only reasonable to ask that the public shall participate in the assets created. Under the procedure of the principal Act and also this amending Bill, the State undertakes a number of risks which would ordinarily be run by a private company, and it is only reasonable to ask that the State should participate in any new value created. We give a valuable guarantee, in some cases amounting to 3 per cent. of the capital created. I notice that the ordinary shares of some railway companies yield 8 per cent. to the investor. If a railway company got a guarantee under this Bill it would enable it to borrow money at 5 per cent., and, therefore, any company in a similar position to that of a railway company would be able to borrow at 3 per cent. cheaper as the result of this guarantee. In return for a gift of this value I submit that the community is entitled to some quid pro quo.
Let me say a word or two about the cost of the guarantee to the community. It is the fact that this guarantee is costly that makes it only reasonable that the community should receive some equivalent to the asset created as the result of the guarantee. It is sometimes supposed that the only cost to the community of this form of finance is the risk that the community may have to pay the capital or interest, or both, in the event of the enterprise proving unremunerative. I submit that is only part of the cost.
The greater part of the cost exists in the depressing effect on national credit of this kind of finance. We are proposing to add £5,000,000 of guarantees to the existing £70,000,000, a total of £75,000,000, leaving out of account the export credits. The effect of this is to create a large number of additional new gilt-edged securities. Securities guaranteed under this Bill become as good as War Loan, or any other form of trustee stock. The effect on national credit is that the gilt-edged securities market is overstocked, national credit is depreciated, and the Government has to borrow at a higher rate of interest than it would otherwise have to pay, owing to the fact that private enterprise is able to compete with the Government in the gilt-edged market. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer, I presume, has been considering the possibility of funding the Floating Debt, and also the problem of meeting the Debt which will mature from year to year. The Floating Debt now is £700,000,000 which will all need to be funded sooner or later, and, the sooner the better in the interests of national credit. The maturities of other debts within the next four years, which must he met, amount to over £1,000,000,000. All that will have to be met by our reborrowing. I submit that the effect of this legislation is to depreciate national credit by making it more difficult and costly to fund the Floating Debt on the one hand, and to convert maturing debt to a lower level of interest. The result of that upon our national balance-sheet in future is likely to be shown in an increase in the interest charged on the debt above what would have to be met if these guarantees were not being given. In view of this burden which is imposed on the national credit and on the community by this legislation, it is high time that the community obtained some quid pro quo to balance the decrease in national credit.
When this case was put by some of my hon. Friends in relation to the beet-sugar subsidy, the then President of the Board of Agriculture, who has since been appointed Viceroy of India, was able to meet the argument only by saying that if the argument were accepted it would he a form of Socialism. That might well be. But these guarantees are a form of inverted or perverted Socialism, in which the community foots the bill and the power of communal credit is being used for the benefit of private enterprise without any return being obtained in a direct form. For that reason, if you go half way you ought to go the whole way. The truth is that the public finance at the present time shows enormous public debts and practically no public assets to set against them. The balance sheet of capitalism is a bankrupt balance sheet so far as the public finances of the country are concerned. [Interruption.] I thought it was common knowledge, until my argument was interrupted. Whereas the National Debt is not far short of 8,000 millions, the national assets are not far above nil.

Major KINDERSLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that our credit is a slight asset?

Mr. DALTON: Our credit is a great asset, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done me the honour to listen to my previous remarks, he would have heard that my complaint was that our credit is being depreciated by this form of finance, and that as a result we must look to some counter-balancing advantage on the lines suggested in the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: That argument may be good, but I am afraid that there is slender foundation for it in this Amendment.

Mr. DALTON: I am sorry that I have been led by the interest of hon. Members opposite in my argument to develop it, as you say, to a rather large extent. Putting the matter in a nutshell our contention is that we should begin at once the large process which I have indicated, by at any rate creating some public assets under the shelter of these guarantees to be set against the enormous public debts which at present overbalance the national balance-sheet.
In the earlier part of my remarks, I suggested there were various ways in which this Amendment could be given effect if it were accepted. We might have a condition that every concern which received a guarantee, should be required to set apart a certain number of shares to be owned by the public, the interest on which should go into the public Treasury in the form of annual revenue. That I think would be quite a satisfactory solution, so far as we are concerned. Failing that, I have no doubt the ingenuity of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can devise many alternative ways in which, if he is prepared to accept the principle we are putting forward, it can be carried out in practice. My contention is that where the enormous power of State credits and guarantees, with the whole taxable wealth of the country behind it, is set in motion for the benefit of particular favoured private concerns, those private concerns should be required as a condition of obtaining guarantees to render some quid pro quo to the community by the setting apart of some portion of the added wealth which they are able to create by means of those guaran-
tees, for the benefit of the community, in the form of publicly-owned assets.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in the larger aspects of the question which he endeavoured to open—an endeavour in which he was promptly frustrated by the Chairman. I do not propose to examine his proposition that the balance-sheet of capitalism is a bankrupt one. I do not think it necessary to do so, as long as we are punctually paying the interest upon the National Debt. Nor do I think it necessary to suggest, in reply to him, the possibly awful condition we might be in if we had an opportunity of testing what a Socialist balance-sheet would be.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not develop that argument further, or the effect on our bed-time may be serious.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Promptly frustrated!

Mr. McNEILL: I am interested to know why this Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). His is not the first name which stands on the Order Paper in support of this Amendment. I do not know whether it was an act of political patronage or of generosity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in whose name the Amendment stands, that he allowed the hon. Member for Peckham to take his place as the Mover of the Amendment, but my very suspicious mind suggests another reason. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) moved an Amendment in almost identical terms last year, when a similar Bill was before the House, but he probably knew quite well that if he moved it to-day my researches would have brought out the fact that, while he moved this Amendment last year, he was careful not to do it in the one year when he could have given effect to it.
It is certainly remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman, who is such a distinguished ornament of the Socialist party, should have refrained from doing anything of the kind when he occupied the position which I am in to-day, and
when he could have not merely moved the Amendment but accepted it. The next comment I have to make on the Amendment is that the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend have carefully refrained from, suggesting how this device can be carried out. The hon. Member, no doubt feeling a difficulty in the utter and complete vagueness of the Amendment, throwing out a mere suggestion that somehow or other, but he had not the slightest idea how—

Mr. DALTON: I think I stated—in fact, I am certain I did state—that the obvious way of giving effect to the Amendment would be that every private enterprise enjoying the benefit of the guarantee should be required to allot a certain number of shares which should be owned by the State, and I went on to say that there might be other alternative methods which the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman himself might suggest, if he preferred them.

Mr. McNEILL: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member, but I was so much attracted by his compliment to myself when he so kindly threw upon me the responsibility of, by my ingenuity, discovering how to give effect to his Amendment, that I am afraid I overlooked the suggestion he appears to have made in the earlier part of his speech. According to the hon. Member, what he suggests is this, that wherever a guarantee is given to some undertaking under this legislation, the State should acquire a certain amount of the capital in that concern. I suppose that what he means is that it should hold a certain amount of ordinary shares in the company. Well, of course, there are examples known of cases in which the State has done that. The State, interested in certain great undertakings, has from time to time acquired a certain holding in the share capital. The most conspicuous example of that, of course, is the Suez Canal, but in the few cases where that has been done, it has been done for totally different reasons from those in the minds of the hon. Member and those who support him. There is no analogy between the holding by the State of Suez Canal shares and the holding of the share capital in ordinary undertakings to be guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act.
Great questions of policy, world-wide policy, and strategy, and matters of that sort come into account there which are entirely absent in the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. What he is suggesting is that we should acquire a certain amount of the ordinary share capital wherever we have given a guarantee. The first answer that I have to make to that is that it would entirely defeat the object which we have in view in this legislation. The object we have in view in giving a State guarantee to help and encourage certain undertakings is for the purpose, and the sole purpose, of creating or encouraging employment. If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were carried out it must involve a certain amount of control by the State; for I do not think he suggests that the Government could possibly hold share capital in an undertaking without either incurring responsibility or undertaking control, and the effect would be that, instead of being an attraction to the ordinary directors of the undertaking, giving it encouragement and help, we should simply frighten them away from making the application, and we should consequently defeat the very object that we have in view.
I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee to-night in showing how disastrous it would be if the Government were to undertake control in the sense that would be involved if this proposal were carried out. Those hon. Members who have read the Debate that took place upon this subject last year will not have forgotten the very remarkable speech that was made on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), in which he showed, with a unique knowledge of these commercial matters, the difficulty that would be involved in the mere elementary project of securing directors who would represent the Government in order to carry on the necessary control. I commend to the attention of the hon. Member and those who are associated with him the speech to which I have alluded, which I must say is perfectly conclusive on the disadvantages that would be incurred if we were to embark upon this system of control by the Government of ordinary commercial undertakings. It would involve, as he pointed out, practically a paralysis of the directorate of the great undertakings
which we desire to help, instead of promoting their prosperity and the employment which that prosperity would give.
There is another reason which I should like to suggest. How does the right hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him propose to earmark the benefit which an undertaking derives from the guarantee? The Government give a guarantee by which a certain amount of capital is procurable in the market at a rate rather lower than the undertaking could secure without that guarantee. Thereafter the undertaking, we will say, succeeds, profits are earned, and employment is given; but there is no way of saying exactly how much of the increased prosperity is due to the guarantee. You cannot separate it from the success which the undertaking would have had even if there had been no guarantee at all, and therefore it is impossible to say that so much is due to the guarantee, and there fore so much, or such and such a proportion, is legitimately due to the State in virtue of that guarantee. Unless you can do that, I cannot see that there is either justice or logic in the proposition, stated generally, that because the State gives a guarantee it is entitled to this particular form of asset which the hon. Gentleman proposes to appropriate. And, of course, he is entirely mistaken, if I may say so, in assuming that the State does not get a fair proportion of the prosperity as it is. If in consequence of the guarantee an undertaking is carried on prosperously and employment is given, the result comes back to the State in the form of taxation. We get a return in Income Tax, and in Super-tax if there is sufficient profit. Therefore, it is not at all true to say or suggest that the State is merely giving something to these private enterprise undertakings, and getting nothing in return. The State is getting something in return, and my suggestion to the Committee is not only that it gets something, but that that return is an adequate and a fair return for what the State gives to these undertakings.
We are not subscribing here to capital. We are not making grants out of the Exchequer. All that we are doing is by the use of the national credit to enable these undertakings to raise capital for themselves in the ordinary Money Market. It is quite a fair and adequate return that the State gets for that by the natural
increment which comes into the Exchequer through the prosperity of that commercial undertaking. Therefore I see no reason whatever for accepting an Amendment of this sort. I hope I am not going to say anything offensive, or anything that hon. Members will consider insulting; if I say that I detect the flavour of Socialism about this. Further, I would say to hon. Members that this is one of a long series of Acts of Parliament, starting in 1921. We have had these Acts renewed ever since, from year to year, practically in the same form. Apart from anything else, it would be utterly out of reason that now, when I confess—I have already confessed—that I hope we are nearing the time that we shall be able to dispense with this legislation altogether—I think it would be absurd that we should now, for the first time, depart from the principle upon which the sum of £70,000,000 have been guaranteed because we have to guarantee another £10,000,000 this year—that we should introduce an entirely new, fatal, mischievous and, to my mind, a radically wrong principle, that is, the principle of Socialism.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given expression to a view of benefit conferred by the Trade Facilities Act, and the guarantees that. I venture to say, will not be recognised anywhere outside the House of Commons. He appears to think that there is nothing conferred by the State; that the guarantee is not capable of being assessed. If there is anything that you can assess more accurately than another in the commercial world it is the Money Market. It is well known that the concerns which have obtained these guarantees have been able to get their money at less cost—at 5¼ and 5½ per cent. while if they had borrowed in the Money Market it is doubtful if they could have obtained the money, in some cases at all events, lower than 8 per cent. The amounts would have been advanced in many cases have been so enormous that it is doubtful whether anyone who had the money to lend would have granted it had it not been guaranteed by the State. The benefits can be assessed accurately. They are known by everybody who takes the
trouble to look into, or who has intimate knowledge of the business concerns. It does not matter what may be the class of business that has received the benefit of these guarantees. Those who are in them know perfectly well the exact value of the guarantees that have been granted. The first point made by the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot measure accurately what is the benefit of the State guarantee has no foundation in fact.

Mr. McNEILL: Of course I did not suggest for a moment that you could not assess the difference between the rates of interest at which you could form, with and without the guarantee. What I meant to say was that allowing for the difference—whatever it might be—it was not possible to ear-mark the value to the company of the use they made of the money.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman there Take the case of one of the most recent guarantees, which amounted to £2,500,000 I have not the least hesitation in saying that the company would not have got their money at anything less than 2 per cent. more than it has cost them under the guarantee. The exact amount that is added, therefore, to the net revenue of that concern is 2 per cent. on £2,500,000. The amount is not only ascertainable, but it is perfectly well known, and it can be shown by any accountant who takes the trouble to go into their accounts year by year. The next point made by the right hon. Gentleman is that the State at present gets an adequate return, and that adequate return is the taxation which is taken by his department out of the profits of the various companies. If that adequate return be a justification for the granting of a guarantee, there is no reason why guarantees should not be universal. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would never think of proposing that; indeed, I know he recognizes the fact that as we are returning almost to the normal, the time is rapidly approaching when we should get rid of the guarantees altogether. But if there be an adequate return, why get rid of them? The adequate return argument of my right hon. Friend is not enough. We ought to see, when we are granting these privileges and making these gifts to various
selected companies, that the State gets full value for the gift it confers. The only justification the right hon. Gentleman has for recommending these grants without any provision being made for the State to participate directly, is that they do provide employment for those who otherwise would have no work.
I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman would carry that, but I have said in the House before, and I repeat it to-night, that that contention is based on the theory that credit in this country is a purely elastic commodity, that it may go up to any figure you like, whereas it is strictly limited. Let me give a single illustration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, within the comparatively near future, will be considering refunding operations. He wants to refund a good deal of his debt on a cheaper basis. If there is not in the City of London or elsewhere a very large margin above the immediate amount that he requires for refunding, a large amount of available credit, or capital as it is sometimes called, for reinvestment, it is quite certain he will not be able to do this refunding at a lower rate of interest. But if the right hon. Gentleman is, by floating those loans under guarantees, to soak up out of the available funds which are in the hands of private individuals, or insurance offices, or financial corporations, the money which is available for investment in trust securities, he will have all the less left as a margin for his refunding operations. That is a practical illustration of the truth that credit is a limited commodity, and not an unlimited commodity; and the right hon. Gentleman is gradually taking more and more of this commodity out of the market and earmarking it for certain specially selected concerns, selected not on any sound economic principle, but selected largely because of the pressure which can be brought to bear in one direction or another, or the dramatic skill with which the case is put before the Committee.
That kind of commendation of this scheme, without any adequate return for the State, is now out of date. There was a time when we were prepared to pay a great deal to tide over the purely temporary hardships. That time is passing away, if it has not already passed away, and what we see now is that every time
the guarantee is given in one direction it means that less work is provided in another. A case was brought before the House quite recently by my hon. friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) in which he pointed out that the guarantee given in the case of Kent coal was actually going to reduce the amount of employment in South Wales and Northumberland and Durham, so that in fact, we shall add nothing even under the head of employment to the benefits the State has bought by these guarantees. The truth is that by giving a guarantee in one direction you may be creating favourable conditions in one part of the country and unfavourable conditions in another part and at the same time you may be diminishing the number employed in the same trade under more favourable conditions as in the case of South Wales, the Midlands and Durham in the coal industry. That kind of illustration shows that you do not get an adequate return by way of increased employment because while you may be providing more employment in one district, you are diminishing it in another.
This is equally true with regard to some of the other trades. Take the case of the shipping industry. Even the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this proposal would not think of pressing the point that when orders for a couple of ships are given to firms on the Clyde, Belfast or on the East Coast under a trade guarantee, those ships would not otherwise have been built because those firms are executing those orders ahead of the usual programme, whereas under ordinary circumstances the orders are given just in advance of requirements. In one instance money has been guaranteed for a new shipping line between New York and South America in competition with two English lines already established. You may have had a few extra orders from this new line but you have diminished the number of orders which must have been placed by the two lines together, and this is simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other, and the adequate return under the heading of employment is not present. If you cannot get an adequate return of this expenditure out of the taxes or out of employment then you must devise some other scheme whereby the State gets full value for the gift it confers. That is a
consecutive argument well worthy of the consideration of the House.
The mover of this Amendment asked why the State should not have a certain number of the ordinary shares in these concerns which it has financed and the Financial Secretary dismissed the suggestion as though it was a novel idea. I cannot think, however, that it was so absent from the right hon. Gentleman's memory as he leads us to suppose, because he must have been aware of the case of the Deutsche Bank which always took good care when providing cheap money for great concerns in Germany to get some return by holding in its own name a large number of shares. This was also done by other banks on the Continent and it was attempted in this country in one case with disastrous results. The proposal which has been made from the front Bench opposite would not make quite certain that the state would get full value for its gift although it would have a chance where the enterprise had been successful, and I cannot see anything particularly wrong in that. I am not a socialist but I am an individualist, yet it makes me somewhat indignant when I see the State giving great financial benefits and getting nothing in return. As an individualist I dislike seeing these advantages conferred in one quarter and not in another and in some instances they are detrimental to the interests of the nation as a whole. This system of giving British credit is creating increased competition among our own people. There is a matter which comes under the Board of Trade to which I wish

to refer, and that is flag discrimination against the British mercantile marine which reached an unknown height in Italy at the very time when the Government made a large gift to an Italian shipping firm. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Dalton) would propose to deal with the case of the Italian Company to which I have just referred. Would he say that the British Government should hold shares in the Italian limited company? I can only suggest that if they did so they might not be quite sure of getting as full a dividend as they would under the British flag. There really, however, is only one reply to the proposal made from the Front Opposition Bench, and that is that, if the State is not going to get a full return for the gift it confers, the State ought to cease making the gift. On every ground we can say quite justifiably that, as you do not like the alternative proposed from the Front Opposition Bench, and can bring forward no complete argument against it, the proper thing to do is to nave an end made to all these guarantees, and terminate the Trade Facilities scheme at the earliest possible moment—to wind up these artificial means for trying to create employment in one direction when you are only diminishing it in another, and not to yield to the temptation offered by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench to socialise British industry.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes. 90; Noes, 198.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[11.42 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham D.M.(Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm(Edin., Cent.)
Kelly, W. T.


Ammon, Charles George
Greenall, T.
Kennedy, T.


Barr, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, John James


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Groves, T.
Mackinder, W.


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hardie, George D.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Buchanan, G.
Harris, Percy A.
Montague, Frederick


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson, John Allen(Wigan)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Henderson, Right Hon, A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Purcell, A. A.


Day, Colonel Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duncan, C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
John, William(Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Fenby, T. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn(Merioneth)
Rose, Frank H.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Gillett, George M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Snell, Harry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stamford, T. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.



Stephen, Campbell
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Taylor, R. A.
Warne, G. H.
Mr. Barnes and Mr. Benjamin Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pielou, D. P.


Albery, Irving James
Grotrian, H. Brent
Power, Sir John Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Preston, William


Astor, Maj Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, W.


Balniel, Lord
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Remer, J. R.


Bennett, A. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hawke, John Anthony
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandon, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hilton, Cecil
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holland, Sir Arthur
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Burman, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jephcott, A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir S.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cope. Major William
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Looker, Herbert William
Templeton, W. P.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
MacIntyre, Ian
Tinne, J. A.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Macmillan, Captain H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watts, Dr. T.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Neville, R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Forrest, W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Oakley, T.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wragg, Herbert


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Pennefather, Sir John
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Frederick George



Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that no further guarantee shall be given under the said section one in respect of any loan for the purpose of any capital undertaking which, whilst promoting employment in one part of the United Kingdom, is calculated to aggravate unemployment in another part.
After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea it is scarcely necessary for me to make further explanation of the object of my amendment. As the Financial Secretary has said, the object of the Trade Facilities Act is to Add to the sum total of employment in the country, and to that extent and in so far as it does that, I think there would be no Member of the House who would not support it. But from the illustration the right hon. gentleman gave and from the cases which have been given in this House, it has been shown to be a fact there there are cases where the guarantees have been given in which while they would seem to create employment in one part of the country they would actually reduce employment in another part.
If I may deal for a moment with the Kent illustration, here is a guarantee given for the development of a coalfield, and I wish to say, as far as I am concerned, if the circumstances and conditions were normal, I would sooner see the average miner living amid the natural surroundings of Kent than I would see him living in the grimy and gloomy conditions and climate that most of the miners have to live in, I would say further, and I say it after careful thought, that if you are going to have those conditions repeated in Kent—and we have no definite guarantee that they are not—well, Kent had better be inundated altogether, for it would be much better for the people concerned there.
At the time this guarantee was given for the development of the coalfields in Kent, the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry was sitting. Here is a position created whereby a Commission has to sit because there is a great lack of employment in that industry. They say here in the Report—which those of us who have stood in the queue at the Vote Office now
have—that the depression in the British coal export trade is, in the main, part of the general depression affecting almost all European coal-producing countries, and the excess of supply over demand is caused partly by the impoverishment of our customers, partly by the development of new coalfields, and partly by the increased use of substitutes. The coal-owners themselves, in their proposals, suggest that 100,000 men will have to leave the coal industry. It is at this particular time, when the whole country is awaiting this Report on the coal industry, that, without regard to the Royal Commission, the Treasury Committee actually guarantees £2,000,000 to the Kent Coal Company for the purpose of developing that coalfield. It was evident that the result must be that if the Kent coalfield is developed at a time when the coal subsidy is being taken away, if we carry out the proposal of the Commission, that we shall be probably closing collieries with good plant, while this new company would be developing the Kent coalfield, with a £2,000,000 State guarantee behind it. In Kent they have about 1,000 men working. They have taken skilled men from here and there and they have taken their unskilled men from the surrounding districts in Kent. As the coalfield develops, they will take a few skilled men from other coalfields, may be from Wales, may be from the North of England, and they will clear the land of labourers in Kent, and also take unskilled labour from the surrounding industries. The guarantee given for the development of the Kent coalfield will have the effect, if it is successful, and that is saying a big thing in regard to the Kent coalfield, of closing mines in South Wales or in Durham. It will leave the population there derelict, while in Kent there will be overcrowding in parts.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Does the hon. Member suggest that the mining industry is so attractive that men will leave other walks of life in Kent in order to go into coal mining?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not suggesting that it is so attractive, but I am suggesting that the agricultural industry and its wages are not attractive. Housing conditions are already acute. I may be told that this is not in order.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in order on the question of unemployment, but if he goes into the housing question, that would be a proper matter to raise in Committee of Supply. It is a matter for administration by the Department concerned.

12.0 M.

Mr. LAWSON: My point is that if this Company is to employ more men who are to be brought from other parts of the country, they will have to provide housing accommodation. Already from the North of England and from Wales men are going to other coalfields. There are no houses for them, and there is overcrowding to a dreadful extent. Many houses in these new areas are being turned into boarding houses. Some of the difficulties which have arisen are due to the fact that the thing which a Britisher loves, and a miner as much as anybody—his home—is made an impossibility.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is to insert the words.
Provided that no further guarantee shall be given under the said section one in respect of any loan for the purpose of any capital undertaking which, whilst promoting employment in one part of the United Kingdom, is calculated to aggravate unemployment in another part.
The point which the hon. Member is making, a matter concerning the social conditions of the people, is one which it would be only proper to raise in Committee of Supply but is irrelevant to this Amendment. The hon. Member is quite in Order in giving the example of Kent from the point of view of employment or unemployment elsewhere, but I have the suspicion that the Amendment is put down in order to discuss the question of social conditions. That would be out of Order on this occasion.

Mr. THURTLE: May it not be argued that one of the consequences of the development of the Kent coalfield is that it necessitates taking away labour from other parts of the country and causing unemployment in other parts, and would not that argument be perfectly valid?

The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me to be valid in the other direction—that more employment would be created by the houses that are to be built. That is a question which can only be argued from the employment point of view on this
occasion, and not from the point of view of the social conditions.

Mr. BECKETT: The hon. Member is arguing that this extension of Government facilities should be used for the purpose of providing better housing conditions in Kent, and surely that is in Order on the main question providing employment.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to submit in this connection that what my hon Friend has in view is that it would have the effect of taking away men from one district to another, men like plasterers, and consequently it would create more unemployment in other trades in the districts from which they were taken. In Scotland plasterers have been taken from one district to another, with the result that bricklayers and joiners have been thrown out of work.

The CHAIRMAN: It is difficult to see how that part of the argument is relevant to this Amendment. It can wait until we get into Committee of Supply.

Mr. PALING: May I point out that there is a great lack of houses in the Doncaster area now, and if these houses are to be built in Kent while there is still a lack of accommodation in other coalfields will it not create more unemployment?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid not. Economic arguments as to the shifting of employment from one part of the country to another, and as to social conditions would not be relevant, on this Amendment, which is solely concerned with the question of the balance of employment, in this instance in the coal industry, in one part of the country compared with another.

Mr. LAWSON: I accept your ruling. It is obvious that there is a living connection between the questions of employment and housing at the present time. We said, when Captain FitzRoy was in the Chair and my first Amendment was ruled out of Order, that we were going to take the opportunity of speaking on this Kent business, because it is a very important matter and there has never been an opportunity for the House to consider it. I do not think that the House ought to allow any business organisation to have a guarantee which is not going to give any employment at all, but is in
practice going to aggravate unemployment in other parts of the country. There are many instances that could be given by Members of the House. This proposal is made at a time when there are very grave conditions in the mining industry, and help is to be given to Kent, of all areas in the country—Kent which, when there were good prices for years and after they had found coal, could not make any progress. This guarantee is brought forward when there is not work for good seams elsewhere, for good pits with good plants. Why Kent should have the benefit of this £2,000,000 guarantee, which will create unemployment in other parts of the country, passes the comprehension of a humble person like myself. Here is a quotation from the "Times" in 1912:
The first commercial deliveries of Kent coal. The vast wealth of Kent's great coalfields enters on a new era of commercial development. Miners are now taking coal from the veins, and more men are being added as fast as extensions of working are made ready for them.
That was in 1912. The extract sounds very much like the wonderful articles of a fortnight ago that were the result of the boom given by this guarantee. I trust that the House of Commons, in this and other cases, will take steps to see that the Committee which grants these guarantees is properly controlled by this House, so that when they propose a guarantee under an Act which sets out to give more employment, they give the money definitely for that purpose and not for any other purpose. Certainly, as far as Kent is concerned, the primary consideration in giving this guarantee was not employment. I trust that the Amendment will be accepted. If it be not accepted, I am not particular as long as we get some definite undertaking that the Committee will be controlled by the House of Commons, and that the Committee will carry out definitely what was the original purpose of this Trade Facilities Act

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I support this Amendment, on grounds which are perhaps, slightly wider than those suggested by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I do so in order to ask this Committee to register a caveat, as it were, against the Trade Facilities Committee granting loans to competitive industries at home. Trade
facilities may be all very well for building bridges in Africa and undertakings of that sort which may provide work for our people here, but where they are used to create competitive business at home, then, as the Mover has said, they are simply causing employment in one place and unemployment in another. This proposal has the same evil as the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whose scheme for dealing with unemployment was that unemployment pay should be used to subsidise an industry against its home competitors. That, I understand, was the chief objection of the Government to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has said, the present proposal is undoubtedly a proposal for a subsidy, and in the case of the Kent coalfield the subsidy will be, at least, £50,000 a year. It is also open to the objection which hon. Members on this side have urged against Government factories. Hon. Members opposite have asked: "Why not use the war factories for making boots?" Our reply has been: "If Government factories make boots, they will drive the people of Northampton out of employment." These proposals, in relation to competitive industry at home, have the the same evil. On these grounds, I feel they are wrong, and we ought to register a definite protest against them. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said he smelt Socialism in the last Amendment. Some of us here have keener noses, and we smell Socialism in the whole of this Bill. As to the actual proposition in regard to the Kent coalfields, the Mover of the Amendment has referred to the history of this matter. I think the Government are going in for a tremendous gamble in this connexion. Such little experience as I have had in the coal trade has shown me that if there is a good proposition of this kind, the money is found without going to the public. If it is necessary to go to the public, the proposition is risky if it is necessary to go to the Government, the proposition must be hopeless. If this Kent scheme succeeds, it is going to be in competition with existing coalfields; if it fails, the taxpayers are going to bear the loss. I feel so strongly on this matter that I, personally, consider myself bound to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. R. McNEILL: My hon. Friend who has just spoken, supports the Amendment because he feels strongly that this legislation—especially having in view the Kent coalfields guarantee—even if it gives employment in one place, will create unemployment in another. The mover of the Amendment has also taken that view. Of course, I do not for a moment suggest that it would not be a very disastrous result, or at all events, a useless and futile result of this Measure if it were to cause unemployment in one place while giving employment in another. But what I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is: How in the world do they think they are going to affect that matter by this Amendment? Let me call the attention of the Committee to what the Amendment proposes. No guarantee is to be given, according to the Amendment,
for the purpose of any capital undertaking which, while promoting employment in one part of the United Kingdom, is calculated to aggravate unemployment in another part.
Calculated by whom?

Mr. THURTLE: By the facts of the case.

Mr. McNEILL: Calculated by whom? The mover of the Amendment must have somebody in his mind. There must be some tribunal. You must have somebody to decide that point. Does the hon. Member mean—[Interruption.]—I cannot carry on a dialogue with half-a-dozen Members at once. There must be somebody to decide whether or not the effect will be to cause unemployment in one place while giving employment in another.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It might be the Ministry of Mines in this case.

Mr. McNEILL: That is not suggested in the Amendment. If it were in the Amendment, I could deal with that point, but I am dealing with the Amendment as it appears on the Paper, and I am pointing out that the Amendment as it appears on the Paper is utterly futile and would have no such effect as that claimed for it by the party opposite. As a matter of fact, the existing law is exactly what the hon. Member is trying to make it by this Amendment. It is the law, under the Act of 1921, that no guarantee shall be given if it is calculated
to aggravate unemployment in another part of the country. The Amendment is utterly unnecessary, for the original Act lays it down that the loan, if there be a loan guaranteed, must be calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom. Obviously, it does not promote employment in the United Kingdom if, by promoting employment in one place, it makes a corresponding or increased amount of unemployment in another place. The only people who can calculate what the effect is likely to be are the Members of the expert Committee which is set up under this Act. It is quite true that the judgment of that Committee, like that of every other committee, may be liable to error, and that that Committee, in deciding on a given scheme, might not in every ease concur with the hon. Member opposite. I am not concerned to say whether or not in a given case the expert knowledge and judgment of the hon. Member might not be quite as good as the knowledge and judgment of the Committee, but we cannot get away from the fact that we may have differences of opinion on this point. All that I am concerned to do, in dealing with this Amendment, is to show that it does not carry the case one iota beyond what the existing legislation has already done, and that, if it were put in the Bill to-morrow, it would have no effect whatever.
Let me say just a word or two about the Kent coal case. I must say that the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite filled me with astonishment. Anyone listening to him who knew nothing what ever about our conditions would have thought from the hon. Member, with his great knowledge on these subjects, that it was quite clear that in England at present there can be hardly any unemployment, because his argument was that if you start a fresh undertaking in Kent—and it does not matter, from this point of view, whether it is with a Government guarantee or not—if you open up a new coalfield in Kent, so fully employed are all the people in the coal mining industry all over the country, that you cannot sink another pit without drawing off employed people from somewhere else.

Hon. MEMBERS: Be fair!

Mr. LAWSON: That was not my argument.

Mr. McNEILL: It is all very well for hon. Members to jeer at that, but really I think that is a perfectly fair inference from the language which the hon. Member employed. I am going to submit the contrary. I do not profess, of course, to have a hundredth part of the expert knowledge on the subject that the hon. Member has, but I really suggest that it is common knowledge that in a great many coalfields of the country there is a very large amount of unemployment at the present time. Then why in the world should unemployment be created, in Wales or Durham or Scotland or any other coalfield, by the opening of a coal field in Kent? Might it not be that, if this Kent coalfield goes forward and becomes a success, it will draw off unemployed people from other parts of the country and give them employment? I submit that that is precisely the object of the guarantee, and that that will be the effect of the guarantee. [Interruption.] I really can not carry on an argument with half-a-dozen hon. Members at the same time, especially as, unfortunately, I am unable to hear what any one of them says when a number of them are speaking together.

Mr. LAWSON: I thought I had made it clear that my own suggestion was that, if you are going to relieve unemployment at all, it is a question of taking people in communities. At present, what has happened in Kent is this, that they have taken a skilled man or two from different collieries in different parts of the country, and they have taken men off the land and from other industries round about Kent for doing the unskilled work.

Mr. McNEILL: As far as the workers in the mines are concerned, and so far as my knowledge goes—and I know something about it, because my own constituency is in that part of the country, although it is not immediately concerned, and I hear something about what is going on—in point of fact, the development is only just beginning. It is quite true—and I suppose it is always true in such cases—that where an industry of that sort is started, there is a certain amount of unskilled and lower paid labour from the land or elsewhere that is drawn into the higher paid industry, and I do not know that hon. Members opposite would object to that. I think that is inevitable, and I
am not prepared to say it is not desirable; at all events, it is an advantage to those who, by the advent of an industry of this sort, procure better work and wages. But you cannot judge of a great work of this sort from its mere pioneer condition. The mere surface is being scratched in the development of the Kent coalfield, in which 250 square miles of coal-bearing seams are now known to be workable. I do not know, and no one can say, exactly what degree of unskilled and what degree of skilled labour will be required. I do not know enough about the industry to say, but I think it is quite clear that you cannot pretend that a great undertaking of that sort can go forward, with new pits being sunk and, as they are sunk, worked, without giving employment. The hon. Member's case is that employment can be got by drawing people away who are employed elsewhere.

Mr. LAWSON: No.

Mr. McNEILL: In that case, then, I think there is not much dividing us. If the hon. Member does not take that point of view, he perhaps agrees with me that a great many men will find employment in this undertaking, and if they are not to be drawn away, as I apparently wrongly understood him to mean, from employment elsewhere, it means that they are to be drawn from the unemployed, and I think that that is probably what the actual result will be. There is no need to go into the details in regard to the merits or demerits of a particular undertaking. Speaking on the Financial Resolution I reminded the Committee that in 1921 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day laid down—and I think rightly—the sound principle that in the selection of the undertakings that were to obtain the benefit of the guarantee that the Government and the Treasury were going to stand aside so that the Committee might carry out their work. What I do submit is that we in the House of Commons are not the best judges of the merits of a particular undertaking, and as to whether or not it should be granted the guarantee. Apart from the general criticism of legislation as a whole—I am not dealing with that at the moment and I am assuming that this legislation has to stand—I really do suggest, whatever may be our view on occasion of the Advisory Committee, that we shall arrive
at better results by accepting the decision of the Committee than we shall do by attempting by ourselves to judge the particular merits of the undertakings about whom a great many of us have very little knowledge and about which we are not likely to arrive at any very great agreement.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Statements about the Kent coalfields require to be received with care, as when we are told that there are 250 square miles of seams in the coal measures which have been discovered. There is considerable disagreement on the part of the experts in the matter. The expert of the Government Department estimates that the total quantity of coal may run to 2,000,000,000 tons. Professor Stanley Jevons, in his book, "British Coalfields," estimates the minimum quantity to be at least 6,000,000,000 tons, and suggests that it may be as high as 9,000,000,000. Here you have the experts disagreeing with such a huge gap between them. Then I would remind the Committee that this coalfield is unique in the history of British mining. There is no other coalfield in Great Britain like it. British mining has developed in the past 200 years very, very gradually from the coal seams that were the outcrop near the surface, and we have gone deeper and deeper into the coal measures to develop the coalfields. This has been known throughout the coalfields for centuries, but in the case of Kent no one dreamed there was coal in Kent 100 years ago. It was only in 1846—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the actual merits of the coalfield in Kent come under this Amendment at all.

Mr. JONES: I thought I was entitled to show that the Kent coalfield was unique geologically and in its physical features, because that has a very important bearing upon whether it can absorb miners unemployed in other coalfields. It is a fact that nobody, not even the mining engineers in the few Kent pits working, know approximately what amount of coal is there.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the merits of the coalfields in Kent. Kent can be used as an illustration only.

Mr. JONES: The number of miners that can be employed in any coalfield is very
accurately estimated by the output, and it is borne out by the Report of the Committee. Four thousand miners working regularly produce 1,000,000 tons a year. In Kent, after 35 years development, there are 1,500 employed. As yet Kent has given little scope for employment. But assuming that it will develop on the most satisfactory lines, is it public policy for the Government at the present time to guarantee this £2,000,000 to Pearson and Norman Long to develop this coalfield for the specific purpose of finding employment? That is a matter of grave public policy in view of the present state of the coal industry and the onus rests upon the Government to prove that the development of the Kent coalfields will bring new markets and will absorb Kent coal without injuring the established coalfields which can produce coal at the same price and quality as is produced in Kent. That is a vital question of employment or unemployment to the coal mining industry. It is obvious that the Kent coalfield, with all its pits developed, cannot produce coal at as low a price, and of as good a quality, as the established coalfields of Great Britain.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Really the hon. Members point does not arise on this question.

Mr. WALLHEAD: With regard to your ruling, Sir, you ruled the first Amendment out of Order and I think you then indicated that you were prepared to allow some latitude on this Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I said the question of the Kent coalfields might be used as an illustration and an illustration only. The hon. Member is dealing with another matter. Obviously if we discuss the merits of every industry to which a guarantee is given we shall never get to the end of this debate.

Mr. JONES: I submit that forty Members of this House are ex-coal miners and 30 or 40 represent constituencies in which miners are a considerable proportion of the electorate. We therefore demand to know what is the policy of this Government in finding work for the unemployed 200,000 miners in this country. I want to point out that the only prospect of increased employment in the coal industry, if there is a development of the Kent coalfield, is to increase the world demand for British coal.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is all very well in its proper place, but it does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. JONES: I will come to another point that does obviously bear upon this question and the aggravation of unemployment by the development of the Kent coalfields. Two hundred thousand miners are out of employment. If you develop the Kent coalfields, you will increase the total quantity of coal produced in this country, and you can only sell that coal, with a restricted market, by keeping out coal produced in other coalfields. In so far as you increase the output of coal in Kent, you are correspondingly reducing the output from other British coalfields, at least, in the same degree as you are finding employment in Kent. If you allow that kind of thing to go on, you are not only standing still, but going backwards, because you are creating more unemployment. We have no guarantee that the mine owners will only employ skilled miners in the Kent pits. They will be tempted, and will in future put on people who have never been down a mine before. They will employ the labour which is cheapest, while at the same time people are unemployed in the established coalfields. The development of Kent coalfields is going to aggravate unemployment, and is also going to increase the so-called inefficiency of mining operations, because the Kent coalfield is undoubtedly the most difficult coalfield in this country to develop.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We shall have plenty of discussions on the coal question without beginning them now.

Mr. JONES: This £2,000,000 is a guarantee of public money behind a private company which would not have developed that field without this guarantee.

Mr. ALBERY: The Amendment says "no further guarantee." The hon. Member is discussing a guarantee already given.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite true.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: While very anxious to get the proceedings conducted in accordance with the ruling of the Chairman, if, on an Amendment of this character, we are not enabled to say, from
the experience of the guarantee given to the Kent coalfied, what we want to be prevented, it is futile to continue the Debate. I hope you, Sir, will allow much greater latitude than we have yet had.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought I had given a great deal of latitude.

Mr. RICHARDSON: This £2,000,000 guarantee to the Kent coalfields is going, in the long run, to be a wild-cat scheme They will never get their £2,000,000 back. Why should we not discuss that?

Mr. MARDY JONES: I am not quite sure that the Government have given a guarantee, because, according to the White Paper, it is a statement of the guarantees which the Treasury have stated their willingness to give up to 31st December, 1925. That does not mean that they have given it. I want to find out from the Treasury whether it is too late for them to withdraw that guarantee altogether in view of the critical state of the coal trade.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ruled the first Amendment out of Order as outside the scope of the Bill and obviously I cannot allow it to be discussed on this Amendment.

Mr. JONES: Might I draw attention to the Financial Resolution bearing on this point, which states that the aggregate capital amount of the loans, the principal or interest of which may be guaranteed under the Acts, is £70,000,000. The period during which the guarantees may be given will expire on 31st March, 1926, but then it goes on to say
It is estimated that after 31st March, 1926, authority for £5,000,000 of guarantees will be unused.
We want to find out whether the £2,000,000 is in the £5,000,000 unused, and, if it is not too late, to get the Government to stop this guarantee for Kent. It goes on to say:
It is proposed to extend the period during which the guarantees may be given to 31st March, 1927. It is further proposed to increase the total of £70,000,000 to £75,000,000.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member in reading from the White Paper issued as a statement on the Money Resolution. When the Money Resolution was under discussion, that would have been the time for him to make his speech, but not now.

Mr. JONES: Then may I approach the question from another standpoint? I observe from the Royal Commission's Report, which has been placed in our hands this evening, the Royal Commission recommend—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really cannot allow the question of the Royal Commission to be discusssed.

Mr. JONES: Surely this Report is common property. It has been published and placed in our hands.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot go on arguing with the hon. Member. Everything that is common property is not necessarily subject to discussion in this House.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Surely if any document is issued to Members of this House which contains paragraphs bearing on the matter under discussion, we are entitled to quote them. As you have not yet heard what the hon. Member was going to quote, you cannot—[HON. MEMBERS: Order, Order.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was listening a long time to what the hon. Member said.

Mr. BECKETT: I did not mean any disrespect, but he was stopped before be made his quotation.

Mr. JONES: If it is contrary to the Rules of Procedure to quote the Royal Commission's Report, we will have our satisfaction at the week-end. May I point out that it is relevant to this issue, where the granting of this £2,000,000 aggravates unemployment in another part of the country, to point out that the demand for British coal throughout the world has been reduced very seriously: In 1914 the British coal supply was 9.8 per cent of the world's demand, in 1924 it was 8.4 per cent., and in 1925, the last year for which we have the data, it fell to 7 per cent. How, therefore, can the Government, in the face of the reduction in the demand for British coal, deliberately guarantee public money to increase the output of coal and thereby to increase unemployment, which is bound to follow therefrom? I respectfully submit to the Government that they ought to come out of their shell. The Financial Secretary
is like an oyster. We cannot open the oyster. We want to find out whether the contents are good or bad, and whether they contain the traditional pearl or not. If the Government are determined to develop the Kent coalfield along these lines, will they give us some guarantee that the people who are to be employed in the mines in Kent shall be brought from the coalfields where miners are thrown out of work because of the output of Kent, and not have the labour required for the Kent development raised from unskilled labour either from that county or anywhere else?

Mr. ROY BIRD: On a point of Order is it in Order for an hon. Member to play a jazz band?

Mr. JONES: I think we are entitled to a statement from the Government tonight. It would be to their advantage to make that statement if they want to improve the harmony that is asked for between employers and employed in the coal industry. There is a very strong suspicion that the Kent coalfield has been developed, not wholly on its merits but for ulterior motives. We are entitled to that opinion and we want to know whether there is any truth in it or not. One renders a service to the Government by giving them an opportunity to believe it if it is not true. Will the right hon. gentleman also give us the assurance that the Kent coalfield shall be developed, not, as other coalfields have been developed, as a source of social unrest and discontent but as an example to the rest of the country?

Miss WILKINSON: Previous speakers have dealt with the coal industry. In this House I represent a constituency that is largely concerned in iron and steel, and it is from the point of view of the iron and steel industry that I would like to ask for some further information from the Financial Secretary. A previous speaker has objected to this Trade Facilities Bill on the ground that it is a kind of Socialism. We object to it just because it is not. I am informed by a very representative committee in my constituency that one of the guarantees that have been given has caused very serious feelings of alarm in the iron and steel industry. A guarantee of no less than £650,000 has been given to the Appleby Iron Company. The Appleby
Iron Company is a firm that is solely concerned in the heavy end of the trade, and it is the heavy end of the iron and steel trade that is most depressed. The lighter ends—tinplate and so on—are in a fairly flourishing condition, but the greater part of unemployment that does exist in the iron and steel industry exists in the heavy end or the trade.

Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. I submit that these arguments have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) in the Chair, or are you, Sir? This is the third time he has interrupted.

Mr. THURTLE: Further to that point of Order. May I submit to you that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), in using this illustration, is endeavouring to show the pitfalls into which the Committee may fall unless it considers fully all the defects of making a grant of this sort, and she is citing this illustration of what may happen in the future.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When the point of Order was raised, I was trying to make out what the hon. Member was trying to show. I have not got at it yet.

Miss WILKINSON: I think it is a little difficult in the course of the first half dozen sentences to put the whole of one's arguments. If the hon. Member would wait until I had completed my argument he might by then understand what I am trying to say. I am sorry to try his patience. The point that I want to get at is this. Here we have in the White Paper a certain grant that is being given to a certain firm dealing in heavy iron and steel. This is presumably a precedent for others. A very important firm in the iron and steel trade are regarding this position with very serious apprehension, and I am trying to show why. Take Middlesbrough, with which I am principally concerned, as a case in point. You have there great steel works that have been idle for the past three years. They have paid for stock as far as they can. They cannot get rid of their stock and the product they have, and now they are finding the
Government are giving this enormous guarantee to a competitive firm in an exactly similar kind of work to themselves and they feel that the effect to them is that it is not only going to aggravate unemployment, but that this is not the time to subsidise a firm in the line of business where the market is already choked. Taking Middlesbrough again, a recent investigation by the Mayor of the town showed that even if the heavy iron and steel industry got back to normal conditions, about 4,000 men would never get work in that area. Under the new conditions and the tremendous strides taken during the War in the introduction of labour-saving machinery, employment in these trades is restricted. If the object of the Trades Facilities Act is to increase the possibilities of employment, why should the Government subsidise just those industries where employers are at their wits' end to get work for those men already in the industry?
Here the actual words state that this guarantee is given in order to extend plant. I am informed that the reason why this guarantee was given was because this particular firm had built new plant near the end of the War and the Government wanted to give them some quid pro quo. I know nothing about it, but that information was given to me. Certainly the principle of the Trade Facilities Act is hardly one that should be used for that particular purpose. The engineering trades, of all trades, are those that are suffering most from over-subsidy. Their plant is far in excess of the possible market and of all the trades, surely they are not the ones that need subsidies at the present time. What is needed is joint research between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and similar Government Departments to see whether new trades can be opened up. We have a very serious case in this part of the country. Under the Trade Facilities Act application was made for a sum—not a very large sum—of money for the opening up of brick works in this area. That was a case where it might have been possible—in fact, it would have been possible—to absorb some of those very men for whom we are trying to get work. I have gone into the matter very fully myself, and I have interested several other hon. Members belonging to various parties in this House. The whole
matter seemed to be sound, but, without any reason being given whatever, the Advisory Committee dealing with the Act has turned this application down. We have asked for a reason, and no reason can be given. We are simply told that the Trades Facilities Advisory Committee cannot agree to the application. Where the most imperative necessity is to get new trades and to take men out of the engineering industry, where it is obvious that for many years they will not be able to get work, where the markets are choked, in that area where the imperative necessity is to remove these men from those trades and to start new works—that is just the area where new industries are being refused facilities under the Trade Facilities Act. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can have from him some undertaking that not merely the stability of the firm and—to put it quite bluntly—not merely the political pull of the firm should be the sole things taken into account, but that some of the smaller firms might be considered, and that this Committee should show a little enterprise.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did very well up to a certain point.

Miss WILKINSON: I am so sorry. I was merely trying to suggest, if I might, from expert advice that had been given me, lines that might prove useful in the future, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take them into account.

1.0 A.M

Captain MACMILLAN: I do not like at this very late hour to intervene in the Debate and the very few remarks I feel it incumbent on me to make, I shall make as briefly as possible. I shall do so on this Amendment rather than on the later Amendment that stands in my name so as not to waste the time of the Committee. The hon. Lady has referred to the case of the guarantee which has been given under this Act to a very important firm in the iron and steel trade, and I think she has referred very temperately and moderately to the matter, having regard to the feeling that has been aroused by the granting of this guarantee. I would venture to utter my protest against the Government taking this Bill at a time that precludes the House from discussing it as fully as it should be discussed. The hon. Member who represents the Advisory Committee
in this House appears to differ in toto from the Minister in charge as to the functions of the Committee. We have very little faith in the system on which this Committee conducts its operations. As regards the granting of the loan in question I think it is true to say that a very serious position has been raised for the whole of the heavy industry, particularly in the north-eastern area. There is a very strong feeling that it is a very unwise thing at a time when the plate-rolling plant in the country is capable of producing four times the existing demand. As I understand the plant, that will be introduced by this guarantee, is exactly the same, copied from existing plant in the same trade. We might ask the Government seriously to consider whether this system of Trade Facilities is really working. Although I very much hesitate to introduce purely local questions I ventured to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman, the representative of the Treasury, as to whether it was the practice or whether it would be the practice of the Committee to consult the views of the trade concerned before making these guarantees, and I was told by the right hon. Gentleman in answer:—
It is not the practice of the Committee to consult or take the views of other firms engaged in the same business.
That may seem a very natural course, because they might think that other firms would be naturally prejudiced. I have in my hand the copy of a letter written by the Secretary of the Trade Facilities Committee to a firm in my constituency which applied for assistance, and in this letter this firm were told that
apart from all other questions, when you have submitted your information on this point, the Committee will probably discuss the matter with the Ironmongers' Association or whoever is the proper representative.
I venture to suggest that the attitude represented by the Committee in the letter I have quoted is wholly inconsistent with that taken up by the answers given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not wish to move the Amendment standing in my name. I wish to save as much time as possible but I venture to submit that what emerges from this debate is the danger to trade of this artificial means which will only probably end in the displacement of employment. If they were used at all
they ought to be used in the closest consultation with the trade concerned. Suspicion has been created under which the Committee works. I think that suspicion is misplaced, but the creation of suspicion is a very bad thing, and hampers and impedes the proper and friendly relations of trade and the advance of trade. I recognise that the general debate shows, that we cannot alter the guarantees that have been given, but we do ask the Government to realise the very strong feeling there is arising in the most harassed trades in the country, and that the time has come, either for a very radical inquiry into the whole operation of the Act, or a very careful consideration as to whether it would not be better to let the whole system alone and allow trade to work upon its normal financial support.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The speech of the hon. and gallant Member really is a plea that the whole of the Trade Facilities Act should be brought to an end. For that many arguments maybe advanced. The Government are only proposing to carry Trade Facilities on for a further year. The House has already decided the principle—

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order to turn his back on the Opposition in the House?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: He must turn his back to somebody.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it was only temporarily.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid I am physically incapable of facing both ways. The House has decided, without a Division, the question of principle. On the whole, if I may venture to say so, I think the House is right to give just the minimum measure of assistance which may enable trade to pursue its course.

Mr. BOOTHBY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) in Order in making astonishing noises?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: When other expedients have been taken to deal with unemployment I think—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can enter into the whole policy.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) was really a speech suitable for the Second Reading and not to this specific Amendment. So far as his argument was directed to the specific Amendment it was twofold. The first part, as I understood it, was that the Government should in some way control the Committee. That is exactly what the House on all previous occasions has been most insistent against from the very start of Trade Facilities or of Export Credits. The House laid down—and I think wisely laid down—that an impartial Committee of practical men should be invited to examine any proposal upon the financial and economic merits, and the House took the view that this was infinitely preferable.

Captain MACMILLAN: May I point out that I did not suggest that the House should control the Committee but should lay down two definite principles—one that the trade should be consulted and the other that the demand should be considered in relation to the output.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It has been continued by each of the Governments. On the first point, I must say that I think my hon. and gallant Friend is wrong. I think the worst judges of a case in which they are interested are the representatives of that particular trade. Supposing you are going to place contracts, and decide the terms of placing contracts, the last who ought to have a say in that is the trade in which the contracts are going to be placed.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in carrying on a duel with the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is very interesting to watch the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman is making to rescue a strayed Member of his party, but is he really in Order.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am replying to an argument which has considerable force which has been raised by two hon. Members.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Are there two rulings? The right hon. Gentleman is much more out of Order than my friend—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman is out of order I shall call upon him. I am not sure, but I thought it would be possible, for the convenience of the Committee on these two Amendments, standing in the names of the hon. Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan), which are with very little exception identical, if we had a discussion on the two at once.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Are the two Amendments identical? We submit they are not. There are considerations in that of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees which are not in our Amendment, and which are very important and ought to be thoroughly discussed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. The suggestion was made, as I thought it would be, for the convenience of the Committee.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I thought it would be best to reply to the arguments advanced on both sides. It is a two-fold argument. The first part is that the trade itself should be consulted by the Committee.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it understood we do not agree to the suggestion?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the other Amendment has not yet been moved.

Mr. JONES: I put it in manuscript.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I take it I am in order in replying to the speech you have ruled as being in Order. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply instead of making two identical speeches. I do not think it would be convenient that the industry should itself be consulted. Obviously, one would not consult, in the capacity of assessors or judges, the firm which had made the application. Equally, I think
it would be improper to consult, in the capacity of assessors or judges, the firms who are competitors in the same industry. On the merits, I think you must have the impartial Committee judging. It is fairer. The judges should be without any interest. With regard to this particular case, let the Committee observe how this comes before the Government. The Committee are, in fact, charged by the Statute with exactly the duty which both Amendments seek to lay upon them. The Committee are charged with the duty of recommending and deciding whether a particular proposal is calculated to promote unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: You, Sir, have already ruled that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) was not in Order in discussing whether this is likely to promote trade. There are four modern collieries in my district which two years ago produced 1,000 tons of coal a day each. If you develop the Kent Coalfield, is there any hope that you can sell any more coal and open these collieries in my district?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: At the moment that point of Order was raised the right hon. Gentleman was doing what he ought to-do—he was addressing me.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On selfish grounds nothing would suit me better than that you would rule the argument out of Order, butt this particular point is what you have ruled to be in Order and The Act itself lays down that the test should be whether employment would be promoted thereby. It comes before the Treasury on the advice of their Committee. The Committee recommended—as absolutely impartial judges—that in fact by this guarantee you will be setting up as efficient a plant as can be set up in this or any other country. It is ideally situated as regards ore, limestone and coal; that the claim made in this particular case is confirmed by the experience of a similar company using the same ore, limestone and coal which is able to compete favourably with foreign competitors and get orders against foreign competitors, that if this plant is established it is reasonable, and indeed almost certain that the result will be, not
so much that orders will be taken from some other firms but that the aggregate of orders coming to this country will be greater than before. The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head, but that was the recommendation made to the. Chancellor of the Exchequer by this Trade Facilities Committee which the House set up. It was upon these findings by the Committee that the Government had to make up their minds whether they should take the very exceptional course of intervening and overruling the findings of this Committee and saying that this guarantee should not be given. The Committee advised that employment in the aggregate in this country would be improved by this plant and that it would mean that we would get foreign orders we were not getting to-day. As long as the Trade Facilities Act is in force, I say my right hon. Friend would really have been wrong to have intervened, and he would have been acting against the rules laid down by the House in this Act of Parliament if he had come in and said that that guarantee should not be given. Those were the circumstances of that particular case. The Kent coal case is an analogous case, and it is only in cases where the Committee recommends on the facts that employment—[Interruption.]—will be increased that a guarantee is given.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. I wanted to ask your protection in this matter. I am very much interested in this matter, and I raised it along with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan). I was therefore hoping to (hear the President's reply; but, seeing that he has turned his back on this side of the Committee, it has for the last five minutes been utterly impossible to hear a word he has said. I ask you if you would be so kind as to suggest to the President that, having replied to the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton he should now give this side of the Committee the benefit of his, I am sure, very brilliant remarks.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that constitutes a point of Order.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to continue the discourse with his back to the Opposition
when the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has given repeated indications that he cannot hear a single word that is said?

Mr. THURTLE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) was very scornful about this Amendment some time ago, and he suggested that the existing regulations were such as to make it quite unnecessary. I venture to submit to him that such is not the case. It is true that, according to existing regulations, the Committee has to satisfy itself that a grant would result in increased employment, but at the same time it is not under an obligation to see that that increased employment in one part of the country does not result in unemployment in other parts of the country. I want to convince the right hon. Gentleman by citing different cases where grants have already been made. They have looked at the matter from a short-sighted point of view, and have not taken into consideration the effect the grants are going to have in other parts of the country. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should wax so indignant at my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) because he ventured to move this Amendment. I think there was absolutely no reason at all why he should work himself up into a passion and metaphorically throw a book at the head of the hon. Member.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Is the hon. Member referring to me? I did not express the smallest indignation, nor did I feel it.

Mr. THURTLE: I should not like, in that case, to hear the right hon. gentleman when he really is indignant. I wanted to convince the Committee that there have been cases in the past where grants to promote employment would have the effect of increasing unemployment in other parts of the country, and I would cite the case of the guarantee in the case of Raysheen, Ltd. This was for, the purpose of providing plant for an artificial silk factory in Northern Ireland. It is perfectly true that by providing that plant, work may have been given to the employés who had to make the machinery for the artificial silk factory. We admit that, but what is going to happen if we take the later effect of the grant? This factory is going to be established in Northern Ireland. It is
not going to employ British labour; it is going to employ labour in Northern Ireland, and that labour is going to come into competition with the labour in this country. Already, we understand, there is too much competition in the artificial silk industry. I see the chairman of Courtaulds was remarking only the other day upon the fact that the competition in the artificial silk industry was becoming much more acute and was likely to be very much more acute in the future. It surely does follow that by financing this company in the North of Ireland you provide work for the workmen there which is going to be in competition with workers in this country and you are in effect likely to cause unemployment. There is a better illustration even than that.
I see that money is being provided for two Malay tin dredging companies for the purpose of providing additional dredges, whose purpose, of course, is to provide additional tin. We already have in this country a tin industry in the county of Cornwall, and for a very long time past that tin industry has suffered very acute depression because of the Malayan competition. It is revived slightly at the present time because of the great demand there is for tin, but now we are going out of our way deliberately, by means of a State guarantee, to increase the Malayan output of tin and to make it more difficult for the tin mines in Cornwall to pay their way. Again it is a shortsighted view of the situation. It is

perfectly true that in the work of manufacturing these additional dredges, employment is going to be provided in this country for a certain number of workpeople, but at the same time the ultimate effect of this is going to be to increase the competition in the tin industry and to increase unemployment in Cornwall as a consequence.

Major KINDERSLEY: Might I ask the hon. Member if he knows what the present price of tin is?

Mr. THURTLE: I believe it is about £290 a ton, but I am not quite certain. I was merely establishing my point that there are clear indications that in the past the Committee has made grants which, while increasing unemployment in one direction, tend to decrease it in another, and this Amendment has been moved in order to guard against that and to call the mind of the Committee to the fact that its duty is not to see these questions in a partial, restricted light, but to see them as a whole. I hope that on reconsideration, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. McNEILL: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 55.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[1.30 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Couper, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hartington, Marquess of


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd) 
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert,S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Blundell, F. N.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major John Waller


Boothby, R. J. G.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hilton, Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Holland, Sir Arthur


Briscoe, Richard George
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Homan, C. W. J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Burman, J. B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Campbell, E. T.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lamb, J. Q.


Chapman, Sir S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Christie, J. A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Cooper, A. Duff
Harland, A.
Loder, J. de V.


Cope, Major William
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Lumley, L. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Templeton, W. P.


MacIntyre, Ian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


MacMillan, Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tinne, J. A.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandon, Lord
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Neville, R. J.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Oakley, T.
Smithers, Waldron
Wise, Sir Fredric


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Womersley, W. J.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Pielou, D. P.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Wragg, Herbert


Preston, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang



Radford, E. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ralne, W.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.


Ramsden, E.
Strickland, Sir Gerald



Remer, J. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') 
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) 
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh 
Kelly, W. T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry 
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) 
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thomas Kennedy.


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

Division No. 81.]
AYES.
[1.40 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Riley Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Benjamin Smith.


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Boothby, R. J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Bennett, A. J.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Betterton, Henry B.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Briscoe, Richard George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Blundell, F. N.
Brittain, Sir Harry




Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Homan, C. W. J.
Sandon, Lord


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.


Christie, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
 Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Couper, J. B.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
 Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
 Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Loder, J. de V.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, Ian
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacMillan, Captain H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
 Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) 


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Templeton, W. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tinne, J. A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nuttall, Ellis
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Central)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Harland, A.
Pielou, D. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Preston, William
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harrison, G. J. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Raine, W.
Wragg, Herbert


Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsden, E.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.



Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

Mr. McNEILL: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 146: Noes, 52.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


MacIntyre, I.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Templeton, W. P.


MacMillan, Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Tinne, J. A.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sanders, Sir Robert A
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandon, Lord
Wells, S. R.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Neville, R. J.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew,W)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon 
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Oakley, T.
Smithers, Waldron
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, W. J.


Pielou, D. P.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Preston, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) 
Wragg, Herbert


Price, Major C. W. M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Radford, E. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.



Raine, W.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsden, E.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Captain Bowyer and Captain Margesson.


Remer, J. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
Hayes.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[1.55 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hills, Major John Waller


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hilton, Cecil


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Holland, Sir Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Homan, C. W. J.


Bennett, A. J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Blundell, F. N.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Briscoe, Richard George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lamb, J. Q.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Locker-Lampson, Com.O.(Handsw'th)


Burman, J. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Loder, J. de V.


Campbell, E. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Lumley, L. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Chapman, Sir S.
Harland, A.
MacIntyre, I.


Christie, J. A.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
MacMillan, Captain H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harrison, G. J. C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cooper, A. Duff
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cope, Major William
Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Couper, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Neville, R. J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

The Committee divided: Ayes 147; Noes, 52.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandon, Lord
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Nuttall, Ellis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Tinne, J. A.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Oakley, T.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wells, S. R.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Pielou, D. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Preston, William
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Central)


Raine, W.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden.E.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Remer, J. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Womersley, W. J


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Salmon, Major I.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wragg, Herbert


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid



Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Templeton, W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr. Hayes.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of periods during which guarantees may be given and remain in force under Overseas Trade Act, 1920 to 1924.)

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have been sitting through this Debate some considerable time now, and those who have not been joining in it but listening carefully to it are beginning to get the opinion that it would be very unwise to continue our sitting at the pre sent time. We have had, it is true, one or two bright periods from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but, although we have had occasional visits from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has not yet intervened in the Debate on this very important stage of this Bill. Apparently he does not intend to favour us at all during the rest of this discussion with his authoritative views upon the matters that we are discussing to-night. Then I think, having regard to the importance of the subject we have been discussing, it is very unwise that we should go on after
this time in the morning if we are not to get proper treatment from the Government Bench. The minority in this House has always been protected, as far as possible, not merely by the Chair, but by the attitude of the Government Bench towards the rights of the minority, and we feel to-night that, at any rate, the Government has not fulfilled that great tradition that Governments should not abuse the power which is theirs for the time being and submerge altogether the rights of minorities, which have been one of the best traditions of this House. We feel that the attitude that has been adopted by the Government Bench in regard to the business which has already been disposed of is such that we ought not to go on to deal with the rest of the business now. If there were not an actual pledge, at least it was what the Chairman described as a hint that there would be ample room for discussion on some of the things which have now been disposed of by the closure. But we remember the action of the Government Bench on the Amendments which have been ruled out—
ruled out not by the Chair but by the action of the Front Government Bench. We regard that as a gross betrayal of what was to us at least an implied promise, and a betrayal of the rights of the Opposition. My hon. Friends behind me feel very strongly indeed about the action of the Government in the matter, and therefore I beg to move.

Mr. McNEILL: I must say I am extremely surprised both by the action and still more by the language of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I think he practically accused me of some breach of faith. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members actually endorse that. All I can say is that I entirely repudiate it; so much so, that I do not really and honestly know exactly to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. He speaks of some arrangement which I know nothing about. I knew of no arrangement, and I know of no arrangement to this moment.

Mr. BECKETT: What we allude to are the remarks from the Chair, which were made to myself, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones), and others, that the speeches we wished to deliver could well be delivered on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan). We then wrote our Amendment out in manuscript in case the hon. Member for Stockton was not going to move it. We took it to the Chair, and we were told it would be quite all right for us to move it.

Mr. McNEILL: I know nothing whatever about that. I have not even heard it until this moment. At all events, it does not justify the hon. Gentleman in making an accusation against me. The complaint must have been intended for me, because I was the person who moved the Closure. I was justified in doing so. I knew of no arrangement, and the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to do with me. It is no part of my duty to defend, if it requires defence, the action of the Chair. But apart from the question of personal delinquency on my part, the hon. Gentleman complains of the treatment of the minority. He complains of my breach of the time-honoured traditions of this House. I can only tell the hon. Member that if he had been
in this House as long as I have he would have a very different view. I can remember being a Member of a very much larger minority, and seeing our Amendments swept aside by the page. When the Government of the day, after ample debate, had moved exactly the same form of Closure as I moved at half-past one. I think the two points raised on this Amendment have been amply debated Nothing was further from my intention or that of my right hon. Friends than to treat the Opposition with any lack of courtesy or consideration. It is possible that in the exercise of our power and judgment in an all-night sitting we may have taken action a little sooner than commends itself to hon. Members opposite. I hope, in the circumstances, that the hon. Member will not press his Motion, because hon. Members will remember that at question time to-day, ample notice was given. The Prime Minister said he hoped to take the first five Orders and no objection was taken by the Leader of the Opposition at that time. It rests very largely with the Opposition themselves how far they distribute the time available over the various items.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to support the Motion that has been moved by my hon. Friend. We have certainly been very surprised at the action of the Government in Moving the Closure on this debate, especially in view of the understanding that was come to when Captain FitzRoy was in the Chair, and also in view of the fact that we understood time was to be given to the Amendment which is supported by Members in every part of the House. That Amendment is substantially different from that in the name of Mr. Lawson and myself. I submit that the Government have ruled out a most important suggestion that would have improved the administration of the Trade Facilities Act, and that it is not really playing the game to Closure the Debate at that point in the discussion.

Mr. MAXTON: On the Motion to report Progress, I want to say that I cannot accept the Financial Secretary's statement as being adequate to the situation. I do not want to cast the same reflection on his moving the Closure deliberately as I do on the Chairman's acceptance of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member takes that view, he will have to take the usual course of putting down a special Motion. The Closure having been accepted, he cannot discuss it.

Mr. MAXTON: I propose to take the necessary steps, Sir. When the Financial Secretary cut out the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and myself, he stated that the matter had been fully discussed, but I put it to him that the Amendment has never been discussed at all.

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that that Amendment was not in order.

Mr. MAXTON: I heard rumours to that effect, but an Amendment to substantially the same effect was in order last year. I took good care to put in a manuscript Amendment, although it only involved the changing of a word or two. This very Amendment, when it was put down last year, was considered worthy of two or three hours' discussion. When I put the Amendment down last year and repeated it this year after having spoken on the subject during an earlier stage of the Bill, I believed it was a genuine serious attempt on my part to make the operations of this Bill do something both for the unemployed here and for our Empire abroad. I did not treat the matter at any stage with any levity. Having achieved a certain measure of support last year, not only from hon. Members on this side of the House, but also from hon. Members on the opposite side, I was entitled to think that it might receive still more support this year. The right hon. Gentlemen evidently thinks that any proposal coming from this side of the House is to be handled in this particular way. I cannot believe, knowing him as I do, that he took this step fully conscious of the seriousness with which some of us regarded the object of this Amendment. I know very well that very often these all-night sittings are of the nature of obstruction, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no such intention in my mind in putting down my Amendment on the Paper. Neither is any feeling of that sort in my mind at this hour of the morning. I think that, having regard to all these considerations, and that many of us here believe that this is an important Measure that is fraught with either good or evil
for the immediate welfare of the unemployed in this country and the Empire among the nations of the world, it ought to be treated with the decencies of public discussion, and that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Motion to report Progress so that we can get a discussion in the proper state of body and mind and give to it the serious consideration it deserves. I have a great feeling of personal huff about the whole business, and never was I more tempted to disregard all Rules of Procedure, because, in circumstances such as these, where the Government of the day are playing fast and loose with the convictions of the minority and the established practices of this House, Members in opposition and in a minority are tempted to take that step now. It would be the easiest thing in the world to make public discussion now and for the rest of the life of this Government impossible in this House. I am constrained from doing that, because I believe that one or two things that will come as business before this House in the next few weeks are so important and so vital to the interests of the country that I would not like to incur the possibility of not being able to take part in their discussion here. It is out of consideration for the unemployed and for the miners awaiting the Report of the Coal Commission, and not out of respect either for the Government or for the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: With regard to the first Amendment, I should like to give the Committee what I understand took place. What was then stated was that the matter was ruled out on the first Amendment, but might possibly be discussed on a later Amendment, which was down in the name of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and that was the Amendment that was discussed for some two or three hours.

Mr. BARR: I just wish to recall what really happened, namely, that there was an understanding between the Chairman and one or two others that these two Amendments might be taken together. We definitely refused to accept that, and it was quite explicitly agreed and understood most clearly that no such arrangement was made, and that these two Amendments were to be taken separately.

Mr. BECKETT: I am one who felt that the moving of the Closure was particu-
larly unjust. I have no desire to make an obstructive speech, but I was assured that there would be an opportunity on the Amendment, and it was preposterous for an hon. Member to get up and tell us the Amendment that was ruled out of order was discussed for two or three hours.

Mr. HERBERT: I was speaking about the Amendment on which the Closure was lately moved.

Mr. BECKETT: We are not discussing that. We are discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. There was a reply by the President of the Board of Trade. Whether the hon. Gentleman has been reading the Press of his own party and preparing for another place, I do not know, but it was impossible for us on this side of the Committee to hear what he said. The Deputy-Chairman told us quite distinctly on that matter in open Committee that we should have the opportunity of raising this matter on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan). In view of past experience we took the precaution of going to the Chair with a manuscript Amendment, and we were told that that would not matter because we would be given the opportunity to raise it. I am quite sure the miners will not get justice from hon. Members opposite.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the Question. The relevant Question is whether I am to report Progress or not?

Mr. BECKETT: I want the Committee to report Progress. The Committee ought to consider whether it is really worth while to sit any longer. There was a grave miscarriage of justice on the discussion, and I do very strongly suggest that we should endeavour to adjourn the House and allow Members to come back refreshed to-morrow.

Mr. LAWSON: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that during the last few days there has been reason to hope that this Bill would be discussed as one of the first Orders of the Day. The Committee will remember it was originally expected that this Bill would be Debated early yesterday afternoon.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: rose in his place, and claimed to Move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. LAWSON: As I understood and I think that it was a clear understanding on both sides of the Committee that the Member for Stockton was to speak upon my Amendment. His Amendment was to be withdrawn, and a full discussion was to be allowed on the particular Amendment which I moved. I left the Chamber for a moment, and to my surprise when I came back the Closure had been moved. While it may not have been a conscious breach of any arrangement, we on these benches thought that there was going to be a full Debate upon that particular aspect of the proceedings. We have been discussing during this week very many important things, but none which more affect the well being of our people, and particularly the unemployed in this country. I suggest that if there is a Bill upon which we ought to debate when the House is fresh certainly it is this particular Bill. The Government might at least agree to our Motion to report Progress in order that we might get a proper opportunity in Committee to discuss this very important Bill. This Bill has assumed the aspect of a nonparty Bill. It is not a question of opposition. On all sides of the House there are various grounds for dissatisfaction upon various aspects of this Bill. I do suggest that it is not any use for the Government to try to push through this Bill in the early hours of the morning. From the point of view of getting a discussion of this matter when we are fresh, from the point of view of getting something more satisfactory and giving the Government time to consider the matter generally the Motion should be assented to.

Mr. PALING: I wish to add my protest against the action of the Financial Secretary. I was amazed that, having moved the Closure on the first Amendment he should move the Closure on the Clause without giving further opportunity for discussion. He would be the first to admit that in the discussion we have had there has been little or no repetition. He cannot say the Debate was trivial up to the time. We who are miners' representatives are here because the matter is of
tremendous importance to us. I hate these all-night sittings, but I am here expressly because of this question coming up. When I have risen there have been five or six up every time because it affects our own industry. That, after such a short Debate, such a terribly important question should be ruled out entirely—in face of an agreement with the Chairman on the first Amendment—seems almost preposterous.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, representing as he does a constituency in Kent, does not quite realise the questions that arise in some of our constituencies. With regard to this coal and steel question in Kent, I have thousands of men unemployed in my constituency, both in the iron and steel trade, and they view with alarm the process that is going on. The average man s now not quite so ignorant about economics as he was some years ago, and when proposals are made to use Government guarantees for expanding the facilities for producing certain materials they like to know whether their interests are being looked after and what will be the effect upon them. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) raises a very important question. Some of us are mindful of the claims of our Colonies. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite assume that we are in favour of some destructive method of dealing with the Empire? We may not approach the question from the same point of view as they do, but our regard for our citizens overseas cannot be disputed for one moment. The Motion to report Progress is surely justified.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Members who have heard the speech of the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will recognise that the Amendment he has put down is the logical outcome to the speech he made on the Second Reading in which he criticised trade facilities and then stated he would make some attempt in the Committee stage to alter the Bill. He spent, to my own knowledge, a considerable amount of time in research in order to make some serious contribution to the Debate. It is quite a common thing to ask us what is our proposal for dealing with the Empire, but the moment we put for-
ward a constructive suggestion we are absolutely refused any discussion on it at all. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite regard the Empire as their special privilege? When it is argued that in the Home Hule Debates whole batches of Amendments were swept aside, I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman was the ringleader of the protest against that procedure. After protesting against that conduct, is it reasonable or logical that he should do the same thing the moment a Government position is conferred upon him? The Home Rule Bill also raised bitter controversy, but in this case the hon. Member for Bridgeton was seriously and anxiously trying to make a contribution to the Debate and no one on this side had any idea of seriously obstructing in any way at all.
In regard to this Bill, I am sure every colleague of mine on these Labour Benches had no intention at all of obstructing. The miners had the interests of their Members to think of—interests which cannot be neglected. Others, again, thought of developing the Empire in a particular method. We wanted to do that in a constructive and sensible fashion, and we wanted to make our contribution as a minority to this particular Bill. That is the solid difference between the Home Rule Bill and this Bill. The Home Rule Bill was a strenuous party measure, where obstruction was legitimately used by the opposing parties, but on this occasion—speaking, I think, for all my colleagues—we had no intention of obstructing. I personally never intended to intervene in the Debate, but I stayed here out of loyalty to my two other colleagues, and because I knew they had applied considerable time and research to this problem. I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton in his speech laid out a line that would have helped the country and the unemployed, and it is because I think he would have inaugurated a discussion on this subject from an entirely new angle that I am disappointed with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who, in the past, I have always found fair in his dealings. I regret his action, which I think is not creditable to him, and not one that he will look back upon with the same delight as he will look back upon some other incidents that he has been involved in.

Mr. McNEILL: I am extremely sorry that any action of mine should have given rise to a sense of grievance, whether justified or not, on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would infinitely rather sit here to 8 or 9 in the morning than let hon. Members in any part of the House think they had a grievance against me personally. In answer to which the hon. Member has just said, I do not suggest for a moment that there was anything in the nature of obstruction. But the hon. Member is quite mistaken if he thinks that what I said about precedents in the past was confined to the Home Rule Bill. If hon. Members are sitting in this House for the next five or six years—I do not care what Government is in power—they will find, not merely in great party questions like the Home Rule Bill but in the ordinary Government business that the use, and sometimes the very stringent use, of the Closure and a much more drastic form of Closure than some of them have yet seen, is absolutely essential if the business of the House is to be got through. I think I may lay that down as a general proposition. But the hon. Member has told me facts which I did not know about the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He has told me that the hon. Member made special research in order to bring forward an Amendment in which he was very strongly personally interested. If I had known that, I am quite free to say I would certainly on that account have delayed asking the Chairman to put the Question, because I should have been very sorry indeed to cut out so earnest minded a man as my hon. Friend—if he will allow me to call him so—the hon. Member for Bridgeton, for whon I have the greatest possible respect. I should have been very sorry to do anything which deprived the Committee of the opportunity of hearing what he had carefully prepared to say. But, apart from that, I do really suggest to hon. Members—some of whom have made it a great ground of complaint that some particular Amendment was cut out, that it covered some new point and that they were interested in it—that that always is so. It is the commonest thing in this House for a number of Amendments to be swept out by the Closure, and of course, hon. Members who have put their names to those Amendments are partic-
ularly interested. They think the Amendments that they themselves had put down are the most important Amendments that are likely to be Moved. We all think that, but we all, in our turn, have to submit to seeing ourselves deprived of the opportunity of making those propositions to the House. I want to repeat that I can assure hon. Members that I had not the slightest knowledge of any sort of undertaking. I still think that the matter contained in the two Amendments was, if not very amply discussed, sufficiently discussed in the time they were before the Committee, and I would like to urge that, instead of discussing that the Chairman should report Progress, we might have spent this time in getting through the business. I think it is really rather unreasonable, simply because hon. Members had spent a considerable time in urging that we should report Progress, that the Government should on that account lose the business which we came here to transact. I therefore hope Members opposite will not think I have taken an unreasonable or unfriendly course in asking them to make the necessary sacrifice to get through the not very large amount of remaining business.

Mr. TAYLOR: I should like to support the Motion to report Progress, because there are some matters affecting the administration of Export Credits that we desire to see discussed. Members on this side have no objection to sitting as long as may be necessary so long as we can have rather more courteous treatment than we have received from the right hon. Gentleman who graces the office of President of the Board of Trade. But if the observations that we have to make and the suggestions that we have to put forward are not going to be given fair and reasonable consideration, then, obviously, the House ought to adjourn until such time as these proposals can be fairly considered. At this early hour of the morning we are apt, perhaps, to lose our tempers and use expressions that we ought not to do. I believe there was one historic occasion when the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not get on very well with his present chief. I believe that on that occasion a book travelled through the air, and that his chief was very hurt about it because the book happened to hit him. I believe that he was considerably hurt by
that incident. I do not want to proceed to that length to-night, but I am going to say that the suggestions which we have to make, and which vitally affect the interests of our constituents, should receive careful consideration on their merits. It is all very well to laugh at suggestions made from these benches relative to the administration of the Trade Facilities Act, but I can assure hon. Members that if they saw some of the victims that are being ruined and compelled to endure a great deal of mental anxiety through the action of the Ministry of Labour in knocking them off the labour exchanges they would not do so. We believe that a great number of these men could be got back to work by a proper administration of this Act, and the Government should realise that we are moved by anxiety to get the matter remedied by this Act. On an important matter like this we ought to have the full consideration of the points we desire to put forward.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my motion. I am afraid that we should have had to press this Motion to a Division but for the ready courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman. We are anxious to facilitate business as much as possible and the right hon. Gentleman recognised that there had been no desire to obstruct business from this side of the Committee. I do want to emphasise that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) was only spoken to by the hon. Member himself. Hon. Members on this side had raised the point and stated that they wanted a separate discussion on it. The Chairman did not indicate that it would be out of order; indeed, he gave the impression to the Committee, on this side of the House at least, that such a discussion would be in order.

Mr. DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I explained my position. It was suggested to me by one hon. Member on the Opposition side of the Committee that a discussion should take place on the two amendments combined. I thought that if that was to the convenience of the Committee, naturally I should fall in with it. But I was subsequently told by other Members of the same party that they would not agree to
that idea. That was during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan). The agreement having broken down, the position was thus materially altered, and the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees having agreed to withdraw his Amendment the whole complexion of the Debate was entirely changed from the moment the agreement had broken down. That was the position.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I quite accept that statement up to a point that the Chairman will remember, when a manuscript Amendment was submitted in place of that of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees so as the discussion should be raised. As far as I am concerned, I have never attempted to misrepresent the Amendment nor to challenge the authority of the Chair. I appreciate the spirit of the reply of the Financial Secretary and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. THURTLE: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to continue the Debate, I cannot put the Question.

Mr. THURTLE: I do wish to continue. My main objection to discussing the Bill at this time is not that there has been any breach of faith. I let that go by the Board. What I object to is that it is three o'clock in the morning when we are to discuss trade with Russia, a most vital issue. That issue is fraught with great consequences to the people of this country. It was discussed about a week ago and it then revealed the fact that there was a very strong feeling amongst hon. Members opposite that there should be some change of policy on the part of the Government on this issue. On such a big issue we ought to select a time to discuss it when we can bring all our faculties to bear on it and when the House is represented much more fully than it is at the present time. Large numbers of Members opposite who are not now present might be very glad of an opportunity to express their conviction that the Government ought to provide further facilities for trade with Russia. Therefore I think that we ought not to discuss such an issue at this time of the morning. I support the Motion to report Progress and I hope it will be pressed to a Division.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Division No. 84.]
AYES.
[3.0 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fits, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben



Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ramsden, E.


Albery, Irving James
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, J. R.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Bennett, A. J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R.,Scar.& Wh'by)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Blundell, F. N.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hilton, Cecil
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sandon, Lord


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Homan, C. W. J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Burman, J. B.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chapman, Sir S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Couper, J. B.
Looer, J. de V.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Courthope, Lieut.-Cot. Sir George L.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacIntyre, Ian
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Neville, R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wragg, Herbert


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pielou, D. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, William



Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.
Major Cope and Major Hennessy.


Harland, A.
Raine, W.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end, to add the words
Provided that no application for a new guarantee shall be rejected by the Board of

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 139.

Trade on the ground that the trade or branch of trade proposed to be re-established is between the United Kingdom and Russia"

I want to assure the Members of the Committee that although this is a matter
that may arouse controversy as between one side or another, I have no intention of raising this matter in any spirit of obstruction. I can assure hon. Members that I am doing it because I believe it is very important, and the fact that it is being moved at this hour of the morning is not my fault. If the Government had taken this in the order it was left yesterday, minor matters like the Northern Ireland Insurance Bill might have been left, and this more important matter dealt with at the proper time. Were any justification needed for this Amendment, it is to be found in the recent discussions which have taken place in this House. For a long time many people have assumed that the Committees appointed under the Trade Facilities Act and the various Acts granting Government credits were competent Committees, upon whose advice the Government act. We have been led to believe—and the recent speeches in this House have revealed the fact—that whatever the Committees make out the Government decides, not upon the questions that have been put before the Committees, but upon the question of high policy. I want to point out that the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department said any recommendations made in his Department would be turned down immediately. It is very probable that the attack made upon the hon. Member may have been undeserved, that he is merely carrying out a policy decided upon. But he happens to be the figure-head for the time being, and he must draw the fire of the enemy, and must bear the brunt of the attacks made upon him. He must suffer for the sins of the Government he represents, and, although we may excuse him of any malicious share in this business, still he is the representative of the Government policy he is carrying out.

It is curious to note that the objections urged against trading with Russia have somewhat changed their character. A little while ago the objection was that the credit of Russia was not good, that she had no credit; that she would never meet her liabilities, and that it was not safe to trade with her. Now we hear that Russia has got so much credit that she has no need for more; that she has, lying in this country, a large volume of credit. We are told that she has got £15,000,000 here to trade upon, and needs no backing.
On the question of the fear of British firms that there may be an inability to pay, I would like to point out that during the past month the British Company of Messrs. Arcos sent out a circular letter to 115 British firms with whom they have been dealing asking if the firms were satisfied with the method of business. I understand they received, up to the first week in March, replies from 90 different firms who have expressed their entire satisfaction, with the exception of one with which there had been a dispute with the Russian trading organisations which had since been settled to the firm's entire satisfaction. On 11th January of this year Mr. Arthur Marshall, managing director of Becos Traders, representing firms with about £150,000,000 of capital, and including a firm that bears the name of the Prime Minister of this country, and various other firms of standing, when interviewed by the "Westminster Gazette" said:
Personally, I do not think for one moment that Russia will default, and I have found, acting for the Becos Traders, that Russia has made payments when due. and I know of no single case in which the present Russian Government has defaulted on any of the obligations it has contracted in this country.
The best security any country with increasing requirements for outside finance can offer is that it would be against her own interests to default, and this is particularly the case with Russia owing to the fact that her foreign trade and commerce is a Government monopoly, and default would immediately involve the collapse of all credit possibilities of every kind.
I challenge the President of the Board of Trade to quote any British firm in this country trading with Russia for the last five or six years which can make any complaint whatever of the default of the Russian Government so far as payment for goods received is concerned.

We have asked the Government to produce evidence of default. None has been forthcoming. The Government are quite prepared to grant credits to nations whose credit is no more secure than Russia, such as Czechoslovakia and Hungary, where you may have a revolution inside the next few months. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, speaking on 22nd February, said that the export of Russian goods to the United Kingdom in 1924 was £20,000,000 sterling, and
Russia took from us £11,000,000 sterling. She as had, therefore, £9,000,000 credit with us. In 1925 Russia sent £25,000,000 odd sterling and took from us £19,000,000 sterling, leaving itself in credit that year £6,000,000 sterling, and in the two years had, therefore, £15,000,000 sterling at its disposal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman who made that statement knows that international trade is not carried along parallel lines, but is carried all round a triangle. Russia may have a favourable balance here and an unfavourable balance in Canada because of purchases made there and her non-sending of commodities to Canada. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman took the figures for two years only. I propose to put a few figures before the Committee in order to correct a wrong impression. In 1920 the purchases by Russia in Great Britain amounted to £2,819,641. In 1921 the purchases amounted to £7,281,258 and the sales to £1,866,375, a turnover of a little over £9,000,000. In 1922 the purchases by Russia here amounted to almost £9,500,000, whilst sales here amounted to almost £6,000,000, a turnover of £15,366,000. In 1923 Russia's purchases here were £4,658,000 and sales £10,458,000 In 1924 the purchases by Russia were £14,800,000 and the sales £19,443,000. In 1925 the purchases by Russia were £27,800,000, against sales to her of £26,241,000. From 1920 to the end of 1925 Russia purchased in this country £66,785,000 worth and sold to us £63,943,000 worth, leaving a balance in favour of Great Britain of £2,842,000 odd. But take the years 1924 and 1925, specifically mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. In these years, as I have already pointed out, Russia's purchases amounted to £42,602,000 and her sales in Great Britain were £45,685,000, leaving at first sight a balance in favour of Russia of £3,082,000. But there is something more that can be said about that balance. There is a great difference between £3,000,000 and £15,000,000 anyhow. But something more may be said. First of all I would like to point out that practically the whole of Russia's foreign trade for last year, amounting to roughly £114,000,000, was insured in the City of London. That is an invisible import that ought to tell as something in our favour. Then there
was the banking charges on a trade turnover of £88,000,000 odd, all of which tells in favour of us in this country. Then there was the question of shipping charges. In the latter months of 1923, and the early months of 1924, Russia in all chartered 169 British steamers to convey grain from her ports to Western Europe.

Mr. HANNON: Did all those vessels fulfil their contract?

Mr. WALLHEAD: So far as I know. It is for the hon. Member opposite to point out that these vessels did not carry out their charter. Between September, 1925, and February, 1926, Russia chartered about 100 British steamers to transport grain to Western Europe from her ports, and between these dates these ships actually carried 1,500,000 tons of grain of all kinds. That is a very considerable amount of value so far as we in this country are concerned, and it passes my comprehension why hon. Members appear to take a delight in sneering at customers that can put that amount of trade in their way.

Mr. HANNON: There is no sneering at that.

Mr. WALLHEAD: So much for the alleged balance of £15,000,000 in Russia's favour. As a matter of fact, the balance is in our favour and it is proved conclusively by the figures I have given, all of which are authoritative. What are the chances of continued trade with Russia? We have been discussing grants-in-aid of developing coalfields in Kent or putting down iron works for another company, but I suggest that it is not much use developing one coalfield at the expense of another here in our own country. It appears to me that what British trade wants is extended markets, markets that can take the commodities that we have to sell.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: And pay for them.

Mr. WALLHEAD: As they have done.

Captain O'CONNOR: Then they do not want credits.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Hon. Members change their ground. It has been pointed out that there is a large market in Russia for considerable goods of all kinds that
are of value to the individual, but I want to suggest that there is another development that might easily be taken note of by British traders. There is the development of the civic life of Russia, and of the amenities of the town life of Russia. The Government of Russia wants to develop the civic life of its people, and when I and some of my colleagues were in Russia last year we discovered that they were extremely anxious to purchase from this country as many motor omnibuses as they could possibly get hold of.
In the City of Moscow the Leyland omnibus was running—some scores, a hundred omnibuses or more. We were told in Moscow that the Leyland omnibus was the best omnibus in Europe so far as they were concerned; it gave them the greatest satisfaction. We found the Leyland omnibus in use in the City of Kharkov, where they wanted more of them, and we were told by the highest authorities in Russia that if they had the chance they would place orders for hundreds and thousands of these Leyland omnibuses with the Leyland firm. [Interruption.] Really, it is astonishing that a man who is trying to put before the Committee a reasoned case cannot be listened to with a little bit of patience by gentlemen who are supposed to interest themselves in the welfare of our unemployed workmen and the parlous state of our trade. Here is a people, anxious to develop the civic life of their towns, admitting that a omnibus of British manufacture is the best they could buy in Europe, wanting to buy more if only this House will act sensibly towards them and put them on the same standard that we allow to other countries and other traders. I suggest that here in this development of the town life in Russia is a very big field indeed, and I propose, in order to prove my case, to quote some figures from a source which I am quite sure hon. Members opposite will not sneer at. I will quote, not from a Bolshevist source, not from publications of the present Russian Government, but from the Russian State Year Book of 1914, the last Year Book, I believe, issued by the late Tsarist Government. The Russian Year Book for 1914 gives certain facts regarding towns of 10,000 population and upwards, and it says that the number of such towns is 1,084. Of these towns 892 had no organised water supply, 38 only were
drained, 55 only had trams, only 105 had gas or electric light, and 320 of these towns of 10,000 population and upwards had no paved roads or footpaths.
Obviously, from the time that war broke out in 1914 the internal condition of Russia began to get very bad indeed. As a matter of fact, it got so abominably bad that the revolution broke out in March of 1917, caused by the breakdown of civic life and the loss of governmental control in Russia. The towns have not got better since then. They must have got worse. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yours have not got any better either.
For hon. Members to sneer at that with the abominable conditions existing in Glasgow where you are proposing to house your people in iron sheds is a little too much. As showing a bearing on this, the Russian State Year Book of 1914 declares that in the year 1910 there were in Russia 22,283,000 cases of contagious and infectious diseases. There is a tremendous area and population desirous of developing their civic life, and I suggest that here is a chance we might take hold of if only we act reasonably. Other nations, although they have neither diplomatic relations nor a trading agreement with Russia, are taking advantage of this opportunity. A statement was made to my colleagues and myself who visited Russia by a man of importance in Russia, whatever you may think of him here. I refer to M. Trotsky, a man of considerable brain power who understands at least what he is talking about and has sufficient knowledge to hold his own and has proved it against all comers. He said:
We here would gladly continue our industrial developments by the machinery bought in your country. Our textile machinery has been manufactured in your country, and whatever workers we have got have been trained on your machines. We are anxious to develop our textile trade with your machinery, but if you will not give us the terms that other firms in other countries give us we shall not be able to do so. The capitalists of America are less backward than your people are, and less actuated by political prejudice. Although we do not want to use American machinery, if we are compelled to make a start with American machinery because of any inability to get your machinery, we shall then be compelled to have all American machinery, because we cannot work and train our workers on two different types of machinery.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has America granted any export credits?

Mr. WALLHEAD: The Russian Government are now able to obtain long-term credits. From our own manufacturers she cannot get short-term credits. I am told by responsible men in Russia that they can get as many short-term credits in England as they want. They do not complain of that at all. But what they want is a credit that will cover two or, perhaps, three harvests.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Member aware that British firms are giving credits?

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am quite well aware that they are not.

Mr. REMER: I can say from my own knowledge that a very considerable order has been taken in Lincolnshire.

Mr. WALLHEAD: That is an exceptional case there; but, even so, I will not say that firms in Lincoln are granting credits of three years to any considerable volume. I make no complaint about short-term credits, but what they want is long-term credits. Krupps and other German firms can give them three years' credits. That is the point I want to make, and I think it is a fair point to make.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has rather forgotten about America.

Mr. J. JONES: Who can forget America?

Mr. WALLHEAD: For whatever reason it may be, it is a fact that American firms who are trading with Russia are giving longer-dated credits than English firms can give. Although as far as Belgium and Russia are concerned there are neither diplomatic relations nor a trade agreement, yet there has been negotiated only two weeks ago an agreement by which the Belgian Government has agreed to guarantee up to 50 per cent. of the value of export trade to Russia. In Germany there is a credit of £15,000,000 to assist trade with Russia now being passed by the Budget Committee of the Lower House, and which will be ratified by the Upper House. Its passage, I understand, is assured. Under this, 60 per cent. will be guaranteed by the State and 40 per cent by the bankers and manufacturers, and credits will be from two to four
years. If my information is correct Very much of this £15,000,000 which Germany is guaranteeing to Russia is to be lent to Germany by us here in this country. We are actually lending money to Germany so that Germany can guarantee trade with Russia and her manufacturers thus make profits at our expense here in this country. It does not seem to me to be a very common-sense arrangement.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: That money has been used in paying reparations to us and to others.

Mr. J. JONES: What a "wise" saying!

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am very well aware that we lent money to Germany for the purpose of paying us reparations. I do not think that it has done us very much good. In this case I am told that the £15,000,000 guarantee Germany has placed behind trade into Russia has been advanced by the bankers here in England—in London—and also in America. Two weeks ago an order was placed in this country for boring machinery for the oil field at Baku. My colleagues and myself saw the representatives of the oil interests in Russia. They said they wanted machinery. We urged the claims of our own people. We begged them to place as large an order as they possibly could in this country. They told us they would if they could get the terms that were necessary for them to place their orders. That seems a creditable thing. We can say that we are not interested in any business. We have no direct interests of any kind; we are not shareholders in any business, through which these people could possibly place orders. We were doing it because we desired to help our own people. The oil interests of Russia have sent representatives to London, and a fortnight ago they placed an order for oil-boring machinery to the extent of a quarter of a million. What are the terms of payment. The terms of payment are (a) first payment of 5 per cent. eight months after placing the contract and (b) December 15 per cent. The remaining 80 per cent. to be spread over 2½ years after the placing of the order. This is the first contract signed of that character. The security in this case is probably the promise of the Russian Government to pay. On the same day when that order was placed here an order was placed in Germany for similar machinery to the
value of 1½ million pounds on the following terms: first payment of 10 per cent. two years after the delivery of the machinery, and the remaining 90 per cent. to be spread over an additional 2½ years. There is work going to the shops of Germany. At the same time that this order was placed an order for £600,000 of machine tools was placed with a German firm. That was offered to British firms first, but they could not give the terms equal to those that Germany gave.
These are but a few instances of orders in the last two or three weeks that might have been secured for our people. It seems to me that if these orders can be obtained it is desirable that they should be. May I point out still further that if it is going to be urged, as probably it will be urged by the Government Front Bench, that we are not going to trade with a country that repudiates its debts, you are trading with Czechoslovakia, and she has not met all her liabilities. You are trading with Italy who has repudiated her debt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My Friends may say it is not repudiation. But, if I understand it, it comes to this, that for the next 60 years we are going to pay in interest about £1,800,000, and we are going to get from Italy about £240,000,000. That is a profitable bargain! May I point out the stupidity that is being exhibited by our responsible persons here. It is not being exhibited by the French Government. The French Government at this moment are negotiating with Russia a settlement of her pre-War debts and the pre-War debts of Russia to France are infinitely greater than they are here. If Russia can meet France satisfactorily there is no reason to suppose that she cannot meet us in the same way. The Foreign Secretary of Russia M. Chicherin has asked on more than one occasion what are the terms upon which Russia can enter into negotiations with the British Government. The Treaty of 1924 was turned down and it is the task of statesmen to enter into negotiations of a difficult character. That is their job and to bring them if possible to a successful conclusion. I say the Russian Government has expressed its desire many times to negotiate and get a statement if they possibly can. They have declared their willingness to the British Government to get a settlement if it possibly can be done, and
I suggest as an indication of the willingness of the British Government to enter into such negotiations that they extend the Trade Facilities Act to Russian, trade. There was work for thousands of our unemployed workmen to supply the Russian people with the things they need.

Major KINDERSLEY: The questions which have been raised by my hon. Friends opposite are of very great importance. A curious thing is that whenever hon. Members opposite get up and talk about Russia, they answer their own questions. They say there is an enormous demand for goods in Russia. We say we are quite prepared to meet it. What is there to prevent business being done? The answer is that Russia has lost her credit, otherwise there would be no difficulty whatever. The banks would be perfectly prepared to finance it. Why has she lost her credit? It is because she is still repudiating her international obligations. Hon. Members opposite will remember that when the abortive Treaty of 1924 was being negotiated, that by way of exception to maintaining her doctrine of repudiation she was, to consider making an arrangement with this country, if we would first give her something in return. Hon. Members know that two people cannot do business together unless they are agreed upon the fundamental principles of financial honesty and of the sanctity of contractual obligations. When this agreement does not exist, no business is possible. If private firms in this country like to run the risk of doing business with the Russian Government, they are perfectly entitled to do it. I expect they make large profits on account of the risks. But when you come to ask the British Government and the British taxpayer to run these risks, then it is a totally different thing. There is a great principle involved in this. We, in the City of London, are the financial centre of the world. If we once admit the right of a nation to repudiate its debts—overlook it, say to them, "You repudiate your debts, yet we will lend you money"—then the whole structure of international finance falls to the ground.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will you deal with my argument that the Russian Government has expressed its desire to meet you upon these very terms you are discussing now?

Major KINDERSLEY: The hon. Member knows more about the intentions of the Russian Government than I do.

Mr. BECKETT: The present Foreign Secretary stated last Session that it had been brought to his notice over the discussion of the German debts.

Major KINDERSLEY: What is the position? Germany under the Dawes Scheme said she wished to recognise and pay her debts to us. She at once got a loan. The only case known to me in which Russia attempted any negotiations she put those words in the draft Treaty "by way of exception." So long as she maintains the Repudiation Decree on her Statute Book she ought not to be lent any money by this Government. Is there not a great deal of difference between a man who owes money and says, "I have had losses, I am sorry, but I intend to pay if you give me something to set me on my legs," and the man who says, "It is against my political principles to pay anything." The last is the attitude of Russia, and in that way she declares herself an international thief, which is what she really is. I do ask hon. Members opposite to believe that another of the chief obstacles to developing trade with Russia is the extraordinary system under which their Government has destroyed private trade and runs things itself. Let us take herrings. Supposing a merchant in Russia wants to buy 100 barrels of herrings. He has to go to an official. This official communicates with Moscow, and Moscow communicates with Arcos. Say the herrings cost £3 per barrel. When these herrings get to the other side the Russian Government puts on another £3 for Government expenses, and then the herrings are so expensive that the poor people cannot afford to buy them. That is another reason why we cannot do business with Russia. Finally, I wish to make this suggestion to hon. Members opposite if they want to help British trade. They seem to be intimate in certain circles in Russia, and they should make representations that the Russians should cease to encourage the boycott of British goods in China.

Mr. T. SHAW: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is aware that in 1919 the Russian Government expressed its willingness, quite openly and plainly, to enter into
negotiations for an arrangement of her debts on the understanding that the damage done to Russia by the unprovoked attack through this country should also be taken into consideration. Over and over again since then Russia has continually expressed her willingness to enter into negotiations for a settlement of the debt question. It is not treating the Committee quite fairly to say that Russia has repudiated her debts and made no advances at all on the matter. I happened to bring a message back myself from that country, and I know perfectly well that the statement I am now making was known to Mr. Bonar Law and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and everybody in Government circles at the time. It is not quite fair to say that Rusisa is a defaulter who has no intention of paying. Russia has put down a perfectly reasonable case for discussion.
4.0 P.M
She says, "You attacked us and forced a War on us." That is a perfectly fair statement of the condition of affairs. But I intervene on another aspect of the matter. Surely in this country at the present moment there is the necessity for all the trade we can get, and no amount of prejudice against a form of government ought to blind us to the necessities of our own people. The question is: Can we do business with this country to a greater degree than we have done, and, by so doing, employ our people? Nobody would doubt the statement that Russia is and will be a huge potential market, and the country that first secures the market of Russia for manufactured goods is the country that is likely to employ its workmen to a much greater degree than it is likely to employ them if trade with Russia is not entered upon. If we take the trouble to examine the matter calmly and without prejudice against forms of government, but simply from the point of view of the interest of our own people, then I am positively certain that it will prove to be quite evident that we ought to do all we can to encourage business with Russia on the best terms possible. This Motion does not ask the Government to finance wild-cat schemes. It is quite wrong to assume that money is lent at all by the Government. The hon. Member who has just spoken is a great
authority on finance, and surely he knows that this is not a loan at all. That is a mistaken term. This is a guarantee to British traders that, if the Government or the Committee thinks that the conditions are such as to give a reasonable prospect of payment, the guarantee can help the credit of the firm that is doing the business with Russia, and the business can be done. There are many firms which cannot, on their own resources, give a long credit, but there are many firms who would be able to deal in that fashion if they had the credit scheme extended to them. There is another argument that has not been touched on yet, and that is the great influence of commercial intercourse between nations in the making certain of peace.
As long as Russia is kept, as it were, as a pariah among the nations, you have a huge population at the East of Europe that will always be a festering sore and a danger of infection. It is much better to make friends with this people. Whatever the Government of Russia is, nobody has ever assumed that the Russian people is a bad one, and a demonstration of friendliness from this country would do more, I think, to promote the future peace of the East of Europe than almost anything else that I know of.
It is extremely doubtful whether a lot of the excesses that happened in Russia were not due to the fact that the other peoples of Europe had not made that friendly demonstration and let the Russion people, as a people, see that the other nations were disposed in a friendly way towards them. I do not think there is any danger of the Government being called on to pay huge sums of money in this matter. The Government have always the power, if it is not satisfied, to turn down the schemes. All the Amendment asks is that a scheme shall not be turned down simply because it comes from Russia. Surely that is a reasonable thing. Take my own constituency, which has felt the brunt of bad trade ever since 1920. There is no trade in the country that has suffered longer and more severely than the cotton trade. It could not work to its full capacity during the War because it could not get its raw material. It had a spurt of extremely good trade after the Armistice, which collapsed more quickly than in any other
trade, and since then the trade has been very bad indeed. As a matter of fact, I think the hours now worked in the spinning mills are 32½ a week. In one of the biggest firms in my own constituency a Russian order was a positive Godsend to the people working there. What I am anxious to see is that as many firms as possible shall be placed in that position. By a friendly gesture and by helping our manufacturers to develop this huge potential market, we should not only do infinite good to our own unemployed people but we should do a great deal of good in promoting peace, in Eastern Europe in particular, and through Eastern Europe the Far East as well and the world in general. I beg to support the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment did not quite distinguish between cash and credit. It is quite true that Russia possesses in this country, if not large credit, a large amount of cash, and it may well be that any man, including the Mover of the Amendment, would be perfectly ready to accept cash from either a country or am individual where he would not be willing to give credit. As regards figures, the figure which was quoted in the course of debate the other day, of the balance for the past two years being £15,000,000 sterling, is correct within £500,000. That takes account, not only of purchases of British goods but the purchase of the whole of the re-exports which Russia has bought in this country. My hon. Friends were perfectly right on previous occasions when they said that over the last two years there had been a balance of approximately £15,000,000.

Mr. TAYLOR: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that figure includes the purchase of Empire goods?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is what I said. An export is an article manufactured or produced in this country and sold outside. A re-export is any article imported into this country, whether from the Empire or a foreign country and then re-exported. And this includes both.

Mr. TAYLOR: It includes purchases sent direct from Canada to Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly not; that would not be recorded in our
trade account at all. In deciding whether Russia had a trade balance in her favour or not in Canada, you would have to take into account the sales by Russia to Canada and purchases by Russia from Canada. It does, as a matter of fact, include large amounts of Canadian produce bought by Russia in this country. My hon. Friends are right in saying that largely increased purchases could have been made, had Russia desired to do so. Nor is it right to represent the action of not only this Government, but all its predecessors, as impeding trade with Russia. There is absolutely nothing to stop any individual or corporation or trade union or cooperative society from trading with Russia as much as ever they like and giving to Russia as much credit as ever they wish to do. Anybody is absolutely free to trade in any way he likes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea gave to the House, I think on a previous occasion, a very curious account of what the banks were doing. I would challenge anybody connected with the banking business in this House to dispute these two propositions.
As far as I know, to-day no bank is giving any long-term credit to Russia at all. The whole of the credit given by the banks is short-term credit. [An HON. MEMBER: "British banks?"] Certainly, British banks. I am not concerned in the action or financial stability of any other banks. It is not short-term credit that is in question here. I am told, further, that no bank in this country is giving even short-term credit to Russia without either complete and full recourse against the drawer or, in the alternative, without easily realisable collateral security in their possession. The banks, who know their business, are trustees for their depositors just as we in this House are trustees for the taxpayers' money. That shows, I think, the extent to which those whose business is credit and who are anxious to give credit, see how far they dare give credit.
The suggestion was made to-night, and has been made before, that there has been some sort of change in the policy of the Government and that we were acting capriciously. Nothing is further from the truth than that. There has been no change in the policy of successive Govern-
ments in regard to export credits. When the first Bill was introduced in this House the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), who was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, specifically stated that it was not the intention to give credits to Russia. He was challenged by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in October, 1921. The hon. and gallant Member then said:
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the second part of the Bill, may I ask a question? It says in the Bill that the export credits are to be extended to all countries. Does that include Russia?

Mr. YOUNG: The words are permissive. Any country may be included.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to include Russia?

Mr. YOUNG: No.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Why not?

Mr. YOUNG: I shall now proceed to what I feel the House considers to be the more interesting part of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1921; col. 763, Vol. 147.]
In the Committee Debate the question was again raised, and in reply I said:
Under the original export credits scheme, which applied to the countries whose financial position had suffered owing to circumstances arising out of the War, it would have been competent for the Government to extend the system of export credits to Russia. The Government have not done so. They have stated repeatedly the terms on which they would consider the question of export credits to Russia…. and there is no proposal to alter the policy of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1921; col. 1180, Vol. 147.]
At that time the Regulations were issued and were open to anybody going to do business under this scheme. In the first Regulations it was positively laid down that it was not intended to apply the scheme to Russia. That has been carried out since 1921 by successive Governments. It was not only carried on by the Coalition and the Conservative Government that succeeded the Coalition, but also by the Socialist Government in exactly the same form. The late Attorney-General challenged the legality of the Government in refusing credits to Russia. Why, if it was illegal, did he allow his Government to continue doing so? What was the position adopted by the Socialist Government in common with all Governments before them? It was not that they would extend unqualified credits to Russia, but
that credit would only be given if the Russian Government fulfilled certain conditions. There had been conferences at various places before then at which, quite contrary to what was said by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), so far from the Russians being willing to acknowledge their debts they absolutely refused to do so. When the Socialist Government came to enter into negotiations with Russia they never even offered the export credits to Russia until they were satisfied that they had got from Russia an adequate quid pro quo in the shape of their Russian Treaty. We did not agree that treaty was an adequate quid pro quo and the country itself pronounced in the most positive way at the last General Election against that treaty. We stated our policy quite clearly when we came into office. The Foreign Secretary stated it in the Debate on the Address, The Minister of Agriculture, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, stated in absolutely positive terms:
It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to refuse credit facilities to the Soviet Government or its agencies until the Soviet Government itself establishes such conditions in the treatment of debts or compensation for confiscated property as will restore confidence and command credit.
That is the position we take up to-day. We must accordingly ask the House to reject this Amendment. We have not based our policy in this question on political prejudice, but entirely on the interests of British trade. The reason is that it would be a danger to British trade were we to do what is proposed. The whole of our British export trade rests on a great structure of credit all the world over. It has been built up, and can be only maintained by perfect faith kept in every transaction. It is absolutely impossible for individuals to give credit unless they know that faith is going to be kept and so this Government, the custodian in a peculiar sense of the country's trade, could not give credit, where obligations had been repudiated; and yet this is the sort of obligation which we are asked to incur. You may get an order here and there, a few, but what would happen. You would be encouraging a million and one traders in every country who have obtained credit to break faith and thereby you would prejudice and restrict trade all over the world. It is for that reason—not
reasons of political prejudice—that I appeal to the House to support the Government.

Mr. TAYLOR: I listened with very great interest to the statement just made by the President of the Board of Trade. He says very truly we may be inclined to accept the cash of Russia but that we are not inclined to give credit. It is the difference between cash and credit that is at the root of the problem of Anglo-Russian trade relations. I do not propose to insult the intelligence of the House by reiterating the arguments about the so called favourable balance of trade. Everybody knows that it is no criterion whatever to take the trade balance over between any two countries and to say that the balance in the case of those two countries is available for purchase in the country which happens to have the favourable balance. Take Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia who have transactions between a British exporter and any of those countries. An obligation is made under the Export Credit scheme or under the Trade Facilities Act. The point is that in these cases the facilities of those Acts are available for such an exporter, but they are not available for an exporter who wants to transact business with Russia. It is because we desire that the transactions between exporters in this country and Russia should be placed on a purely business basis without any regard to political interests, that we want the Government to change their policy. The Government no longer attempts to define its policy on any other than political grounds. We witnessed the spectacle during last week's Debate of a member of the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act getting up in this House and stating if any applications were made by exporters for Anglo-Russian business they would receive full, fair, careful and impartial consideration, and then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade promptly gets up and states that he would veto any proposal of that kind that came forward.
So the real position is, that this Government are not, and never have been willing to consider applications dealing with Anglo-Russian trade purely on the basis of their business merits. I asked the President of the Board of Trade to receive a deputation of manu-
facturers to go into the details of a transaction involving a very large sum of money which would have made a very large contribution towards abolishing unemployment, at any rate for six months in the city I represent. He flatly refused to receive any such deputation. They have made application from time to time for the extension of these Acts to Anglo-Russian trade. It is true to say, there is nothing to prevent the development of Anglo-Russian trade except the political uncertainty that is involved in the relations of the two countries. It prevents that confidence which is the basis of credit between Russia and this country, or any other, without which long term credit will not, and cannot, reach full fruition. I do not want to hear about the Third International. I want to hear about the people who are walking the streets of Lincoln, whose lives have been ruined very largely by the Government's handling of this problem. What I want to put now to the representatives of the Government is this. We now see a situation in which the trade of America with Russia has grown to more than its pre-War volume. Even Mr. Henry Ford, who never trades on credit, has recently broken his rule and sold ten thousand tractors to Russia on a part-payment system. American agricultural machinery—the International Harvesting Company—can see their new machinery in various parts of Russia to-day and they are getting virtually a monopoly. [An HON. MEMBER: "They always have."] No, they have not.

Captain O'CONNOR: I know the agricultural districts of Russia intimately and I have examined them. For one English machine there were 10 American or German. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. and gallant Member has not seen very much of Russia!"]

Mr. TAYLOR: We used to export tremendous quantities in the years before the War.

Captain O'CONNOR: If the hon. Member will allow me I believe I succeeded in getting an order for the first threshing machine that had ever been sold by Messrs. Ruston and Hornby and that was in 1911, I think.

Mr. TAYLOR: I have seen machines out there for many years. The situation
we are placed in to-day is that America is rapidly developing her exports to Russia. Already they are larger than the pre-War volume. Orders are being placed in Germany with German firms in which British money is directly interested on terms refused by English manufacturers, because they cannot get accommodation from British banks. British finance invested in German banks and in German industry is giving in the agricultural machinery industry three harvests' credit to the Russians, whilst we in England are compelled to refuse these orders because British exporters going to British banks for accommodation on that business are simply told that there is not a penny of accommodation for Russian business.

Mr. REMER: Messrs. Ruston and Hornby and Messrs. Marshall, Sons and Company have taken orders on the terms the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. TAYLOR: The proposition of payment and the period over which payment extends are essential points. Instead of being able to take what they were offered they were only able to take somewhere about one-tenth of the quantity. They could have had it if they had been able to give the volume of credit the German firms, financed by a group of German banks, give.

Mr. REMER: Both firms are very reluctant to take any orders at all and give credit to Russia.

Mr. TAYLOR: The hon. Member represents Macclesfield and I represent Lincoln and his information does not carry us very far. I happen to know the circumstances which British manufacturers have to face in connection with this problem. The real trouble is the political insecurity existing in the relationships between the two countries. Until that is settled there can be no great extension of Anglo-Russian trade. The Government have taken no steps since the treaty negotiations by the Labour Government to state what would be an acceptable basis for new negotiations with Russia. Sooner or later the problem of political relationships between the two countries will have to be settled by discussion. They certainly cannot be settled by obstinacy on both sides or one side or the other.
I have never believed that all the faults lay with the present or past
British Governments. The Englishman can recognise that there is a Russian side as well as an English side. The Government is not doing its duty in keeping the relationships between the two countries in the present position. If the Russian Government were to agree to recognise their pre-War indebtedness to British nationals and were at the same time to suggest that the money lent by Great Britain to Russia for the prosecution of the War might be written off against the claims of Russia against Great Britain for the damage caused to Russia, would that be an acceptable basis for new negotiations? The advantage to Russia of better trade relationships with Western Europe would induce her to settle her pre-War indebtedness on terms not less favourable than those involved in the Italian settlement. If the British Government will not make any move, can we get to know what kind of move would be acceptable if made by Russia?

Sir GERALD TRICKLAND: An honest general election in Russia.

Mr. TAYLOR: The hon. Gentleman does not want a settlement; he wants an argument. I appeal to the Government to take this question out of the realm of party controversy and deal with it purely from the point of view of the economic interests of the country.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I must own to some surprise at the attitude of the party opposite towards Russia. I should say, from what I know of Russia, that it should have been the last country to which they would have alluded, since in my opinion it is probably the greatest failure that their policy has ever had. I have not had the privilege, like the hon. Member for Preston and the hon. Member for Merthy Tydvil, of being on a personally conducted tour of Russia. I have not been there to see just what I was intended to see.

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. Can the hon. Member prove his statement that it was a personally conducted tour?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Nor have I been told exactly what I was intended to know and to bring home and tell the people at home.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the hon. Member entitled to make expressions of that sort, that Members came back here to say what they were told by a foreign Government?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I noticed it was mentioned that they visited the towns of Russia and saw what was in the towns. Did they visit the country and see the position of the peasants whom the Government had ground down and to whom they denied all hope, all ambition and all prosperity? Did they see that? They were not shown it. I have had the good, or bad fortune to spend a good many years in Russia. I had the honour of assisting our Government, in conjunction with several other Chrisian Governments, in trying to wipe out the cancer that was eating into the country at the time. We failed owing to the conditions for which several followers of the party opposite were responsible.

Mr. T. SHAW: You failed because—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to express an opinion.

Mr. T. SHAW: I express my personal regret to you, but may I call attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member made certain aspersions on the methods of hon. Members of this House, aspersions that were quite unjustified, quite untrue and had no basis or semblance of basis on fact?

Mr. JOHN: I wish the Chair would be equally as fair to the hon. Member.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not reflect on the integrity of the Chair.

Mr. BECKETT: You only help Tory Members; you never help Members on this side of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am telling of what I have seen and know. I have seen the large timber forests of Russia ready to be cut down and taken away to the sea. I have seen the vast fields that would provide the granaries for all Europe and more. I have seen hundreds of miles of railways lying derelict and hundreds of rolling stock also lying derelict. It was because there was no enterprise on the part of the Government and
because they had no skilled labour. They had killed the skilled labour that was in Russia before.
I am as keen as anyone on trade with Russia or with any other country that would bring happiness to our people, but Russia must recognise her pre-War obligations and debts. She must also alter her attitude towards the peasants and workers of the country and must see that their wages are fair, that their standard of living is fair and that their hours of work are fair. Also I would be strongly desirous of trade with Russia if it could be quite certain that all the money that we guaranteed would be spent in this country so as to promote work for our own people. Members have frequently talked to-night about the desire to trade with Russia. If I may say so, that is not entirely the point which we as a nation should consider. The Russians are an odd people. They are very good at planning and talking, but many of them are not particularly good at doing. The reason that Russia became, and was becoming, prosperous before the War was due to the fact that vast numbers of Britishers developed the country and established vast enterprises there and caused the country to prosper.
What we want is to give facilities for those traders and merchants to go back to Russia and to ensure that they will have stability and security in carrying out their job in Russia. I would conclude by saying it is very difficult to forget the iniquities of the Russian Government, and the sorrow and the anguish that that Government has caused to her people, but if, by affording these facilities to trade with Russia on the terms I have mentioned, we could further the prosperity of our country and bring more work and happiness to our people, then I would be perfectly prepared to support this proposal.

Mr. PURCELL: rose—

Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have called on the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell).

Mr. WALLHEAD: But this is a point of Order. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has made a statement to the effect that I have come here with a tale that I was
told to tell. If he does say that, then I tell him that he lies.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not accuse other hon. Members of speaking what is not true intentionally. I hope he will withdraw that.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Unless the hon. and gallant Member withdraws the statement he has made in reference to myself I shall not withdraw.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may not believe what another hon. Member says, but he is not entitled to say he deliberately tells an untruth. He must withdraw his statement.

Mr. PURCELL: Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to make pointed references of such a nature unless he is prepared to substantiate them when challenged?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to say what he thinks to be true. If he thinks a statement is true he is entitled to say so. It is for other Members in subsequent speeches to prove the opposite.

Mr. BARR: Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) to throw across the Floor of the House statements that are most offensive and unworthy of the dignity of the House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) withdraw the statement he made?

Mr. WALLHEAD: I will withdraw and say that the hon. Member is absolutely unjustified in making the statement he has made, and that he has no grounds whatever for the statement.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Ofcourse, I will accept that withdrawal.

Mr. T. SHAW: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member who has cast an aspersion on another hon. Member without attempting to justify that aspersion is to be asked to withdraw the aspersion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Naturally an hon. Member drawing an aspersion against another hon. Member of this House must justify what he says.

Mr. PURCELL: I want to congratulate you, Captain FitzRoy, on having had the
very high honour of permitting me to speak. In two days I have tried for 8½ hours. I want to approach this question in a rather different way from that in which so far most Members have approached it. I think it is important that we should face the position. It is not a question, to my mind, of political considerations at all. You have a new country in which a terrific change has taken place.
I think that even if you recognised, for example, the Czarist debt and what is known as the War debt for materials and munitions supplied during the War, it does not seem to me that you would find work for the people unemployed at present in this country. So that brings us to the third and most important bar in the way, that is, the payment for things supplied. It has been put to me in this way—that if you purchase a pair of boots and you do not pay for them it is very difficult to get your boot supplier to let you have another pair of boots until you have paid for the first pair. I want to face the case of hon. Members opposite. If material for railways and material for factories and for the equipment of factories had been supplied and so many traders had been at the present time nationalised by you, the very least you ought to do is to settle the account due for former supplies. That is what is said. There is another point almost as important as that one. I understand it to be that there are no Courts in Russia comparable to the Courts that exist in this country in which a Russian or a Britisher can recover a debt. Apart altogether from political considerations, we have to see if these difficulties can be met. To ask us to get over these two hurdles by merely seeing that education is developed, that industry is developed, that the organisation of the country is developed, and all this kind of thing, does not appear to me to be sufficient to enable us to get over these great difficulties.
If those two difficulties could be surmounted the path could be very easy. We have to keep in mind that as Russia develops, as it will certainly develop, and as it will rebuild and reorganise, it is a totally different Russia from the pre-War thing. The development of electricity with their present great scheme means the throwing of huge orders in all parts of the world for all kinds of electrical machinery. We have to recog-
nise that, and we must not for one moment think that comparisons can be made such as between orders placed here and in Germany or in America. We have rather to look at it from the point of view of a desperate piece of bargaining. With regard to America, it is in many respects practically a cash transaction. I have seen the agricultural machinery which is that of the International Harvester Company and is mainly, and always was, equipped by America. Similarly, other things were always equipped from Germany, and others from Sweden or other parts of the world. If you can by some means or another drive a wedge through this present difficult position and enable trading to take place, to help to lift confidence higher so that an increasing amount of trading may take place, then I think it would be a good thing.
5.0 A.M.
I think we have to face it rather more openly than that. It does not seem tome that that is sufficient if we are agreed, and I have never heard anyone object or say one word against the amount of work that could be got from Russia because of the great schemes they have and the amount of machinery needed. If, therefore, it is true, as I believe it is true that they require these great masses of goods, and having regard to the fact that we have such a vast army of people unemployed we ought to consider first whether it is possible by some means or other to get these parties together for the purpose of finding out how far assistance can be given for the purpose of meeting their views and requirements and then putting large numbers of our people into work. We ought to see whether something could not be done to show them from the industrial point of view a kinder feeling whether by way of treaty, agreement or any other sort of negotiation so long as you get there. That seems to me he thing to do. We want this mass of work. I want to see Russia develop. We ought never to talk about other people's mistakes. We have a few to our record and what I desire to urge is this. So important is this question that I believe it is the duty of both Liberals and Conservatives together with the Labour party—if they could do that—to sit down and find out just how this question of supplying the requirements of Russia and upon what basis and
conditions and how the difficulties can be surmounted, can be met. It would be helpful to us. I am an Internationalist, but I am also a Nationalist. Many of our highly skilled men in this country are already unemployed, and some of us fear that unless they get work soon much of their skill will be lost: those fine shipbuilders on the great rivers of this country, men who have given great service to the State, many of them are unemployed and, in my opinion, for want of a better word, are rotting away. While we are hanging fire in this way, other countries are getting in; they saw what Germany was doing. It seems to me the duty of this House to see that certain people are appointed as speedily as possible to find out the ways and means of doing this. It is no good shouting at Russia, and trying to get over the difficulty that way. If Germany can do business, if America can do business, if Belgium can do business, and grant them credits, it seems to me that that calls for us to get ahead if we want to restore and get back to the old position of something approaching the workshop of the world. Trust Russia, not because they are Russians or Bolsheviks, but because they have trade to give, and our business is to get business for this country.

Captain O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. Is this Amendment in order? I want to put the point in this way. I assume it is open to the Board of Trade to refuse to trade with any other country on economic grounds and to refuse guarantees to a country without any other grounds. Supposing that this Amendment is passed, it would in fact put Russia in a privileged position which no other country would possess, because the Board of Trade would not be entitled to exclude trade with Russia on that ground alone. Would not that be a breach of the most-favoured nation Clause?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is rather late in the day to raise this. I think, as a matter of fact, the Amendment is in Order.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and I congratulate him on an admirable speech.
I think the time has come when we should stop using strong language
against each other on the subject of Russia, and see if we cannot come to terms with that great place. There must be at least 220,000,000 people living in Russia to-day. It is, I suppose, potentially the richest place in the world. The Caucasus alone are richer than any other district of the same size. It has been said that we ought not to talk about Russia repudiating her debts; that other nations have done the same. But I do not think that you will easily find the case of a country which had been one of several allies repudiating its debts to a former ally after a great war.

Mr. J. JONES: What about France?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, she has not.

Mr. J. JONES: Is there not a party working in France saying that they will not pay their debts?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. JONES: It is a fact, Sir.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should address me.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: All the interruption means is this, that the hon. Gentleman says France may repudiate her debts if she goes bankrupt. That of course she may do. It will be force of circumstances. But, unlike Russia, France has not wantonly refused to pay on principle. Nor has France passed a Bill expropriating land, and she does not take money belonging to us in her country, or murder our representatives in our own Legations. She does not take people who fought for her, and lock them up in prison, and I challange the hon. Gentleman to point to a single English or British person who has lost property by expropriation in France. We have been robbed by Russia. You may say that Russia is entitled to any Government she likes, and can pass any Bills she likes, and can expropriate her own nationals. But she has no right to rob us, and, having robbed us, to expect us to advance more money. We are told now that huge sums have been spent by the Soviet for purchasing large masses of machinery for Baku. But remember that many of these oil wells were created and fostered by British capital. They have since been seized, virtually stolen, and the stocks and appliances belonging to
us have been taken for nothing. Indeed the Soviet has been selling Russian oil in this country below cost price because no capital charges had to he paid.
Why should we not get something back on these losses before we advance anything more. I do not agree with the speech of the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), who takes the view that we shall never get anything out of the Russians until we pay them for our "alleged invasion" as he calls it. We shall never get anything at all if we take that view. It is a point of view wholly false, and if examined impartially will not be found to hold water. What are the facts? During the early years of the War, Russia was our ally. Quite suddenly revolution broke out. The Czar was deposed, and a Republic was set up. I fought under the Czar; I also fought under the Republic, and was very proud to fight for the cause under both in Russia. Next the Bolsheviks came along, and destroyed the Republic. They would not let me fight on. Instead they took money on all hands from the Germans, and behind our backs they made a shameful peace which sold our allies and ourselves to the agony of two more years of carnage. But some Russians stuck to the cause, and we supported them. All over Russia bands of them remained loyal. Were we wrong in supporting them? The hon. Member for Preston's case is a hopeless one.
The hon. Member who spoke last made a very good speech in which he appealed to all of us to sink our differences. I really would like to see understanding in a matter of this sort. He asked the Government whether they would not again approach the Soviet? He and others have been to Russia, and if that is their view, why should they not do their bit in approaching the Russian Government indicating that we cannot continue to recognise them so long as they refuse to recognise us and their debts. It may not be that we are going to get back all we have lost, but let them only show a change of heart, and I am certain there is no Government in this country or any other which will not welcome that day as fruitful of great beginnings.

Mr. MARDY JONES: The last speaker has, I believe, had years of experience in Russia during the most trying period
in the history of modern Russia, and if we can only instil a little more good will between the two countries we will have done some good service. Although our visit covered a very short period of time we tried to put into that period as much travelling and sightseeing and seeking to understand the place as possible, and I want to repudiate the suggestion that we were taken round like so many children to see what we were intended to see and come back and speak as we were told to speak. Those of us who went there in September last went for the sole purpose of trying to find out at first hand what were the net results to date of the great revolution. We satisfied ourselves that the revolution has led to the first period of getting settled Government, and that they are now rapidly developing into a more democratic and efficient State. We had access to the heads of the Government in Moscow, Leningrad and elsewhere, and we found that many of the men who are at the head of affairs in Russia to-day are men of keen business experience who have lived for many years in various other parts of Europe and in America.
Many of them spoke English as well as ourselves, and we put to them the point that the last speaker has put: Are they really prepared to consider the question of their indebtedness to us? And we came away with a written statement from M. Rykoff, head of the Soviet Government of All the Russians, which is a very distinct opening in that direction. I believe there are still two opinions in Russia. One is against bothering to get into contact with the rest of Western civilisation. That was the dominant position during the revolutionary period, but it is being replaced by a more up-to-date attitude and a desire for contact with the rest of Europe on proper fines. We believe that something substantial could be done if the British Government gave some indication that they are prepared to negotiate a treaty more or less on the lines of the treaty of the first. Labour Government in this country; modified as much as you like, but recognising that there are debts on both sides to be considered and weighed by a Committee representative of both countries.
Then I am quite satisfied that Russia will get away from the Declaration of 1918 and will in principle and in fact
recognise that, within certain reasonable limits, she has got to make a reasonable repayment of those debts. But even if that is agreed to, it is quite obvious that Russia cannot be in a position to make repayments of War or pre-War debts until she has been put upon her feet industrially. Her machinery is worn out and needs to be renewed, and I say that the Rusisan market is the biggest potential market that we could have in this country for the next 30 years. A great deal of the trade that would come to us in the ordinary course will otherwise go to Germany and America and other countries, and I hope the Government will give some indication that they are prepared to negotiate with Russia along the lines indicated to-night by several speakers.

Mr. BECKETT: I would like to point out that in the Motion now before the Committee there is no stipulation that Russia should have any favoured treatment of any kind. All we ask is that the Committee of experts who are to consider proposals for credit facilities shall not be refused the right to examine a proposal to trade with Russia in the same business like way that they would examine any other. The point that we are alarmed about was the statement made the other night by the Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Trade, that he would not allow the Committee to consider the proposal. Surely if these Committees give anything like the scrutiny that we are assured by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that they do give, this House might well leave the business side of the transaction with Russia in the hands of those Committees.
The only other point I wish to deal with is the reason why we should have to extend credit facilities to Russia. I know that on Tyneside several of our firms, if times were better, would be able to compete with the big American firms in offering long-term credits, but we have to face the fact that, in the very industries which could be helped most by this Russian trade, the ability to give the necessary credit to a country which is expanding is not there, and unless these firms can submit their goods for credit facilities to enable them to compete with Germany and America in long-term credits we are going to let all this trade go from us. There are two versions of
the history which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway gave; two versions of the action between the Whites and the Reds after the War. I think the version which all Members of the House would agree to is this: that up to the time of the Russian Revolution Russia was a very backward country, kept back by its large size, the low standard of education among its people, and the very autocratic and corrupt system of government which it had.
The old system of government has gone. The businesses and the workers for whom sympathy has been expressed from the other side of the House were impoverished. If they had fallen, and a Government has risen which does not meet all the requirements of hon. Gentlemen opposite, let us say that that was because the late Government kept them under such an autocratic condition. We realise the difficulties in the way of doing trade with Russia. But why not meet Russia? An agreement which the late Government of this country made was rejected both by this House and the country. Let us leave that and treat it as past history. It is no reason why the present Government should not meet the Russians. I think we should ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will enter into negotiations with the Russians on this point. I do suggest that hon. Members should put aside prejudice and remember that if we are not going to find new markets it is very doubtful if we can maintain any decent standard of living for our population. It is all very well to say that hon. Members on this side of the House should go to Russia and try to persuade them. When we do go to Russia and come back you do not believe us. I should like to see Conservative Members go to Russia. I would read their reports with interest. I do not read only Labour reports. I have read Mr. Keynes' report, and I think it is the best that has been written on Russia from any source. I do suggest that you should try and get in touch with Russia and that there can be no insuperable barrier to 45,000,000 people in this country trading with 200,000,000 people in Russia. I want the Government of this country to see whether it cannot approach Russia and come to some understanding. There is nothing whatever in this Motion to commit you to trading with Russia, but it does give an opportunity for a keen scrutiny of any proposals.

Mr. J. JONES: A great deal has been said in this Debate about Russia and a great deal of slop has been talked by some of my hon. Friends. I am just as much in favour of having friendly relationships with every country as any of those who have spoken in favour of this proposition. We all want to see international trade and international friendship, but some of my hon. Friends have gone out of their way to talk about a revolution in Russia that has not been a revolution. Some of the best men who ever fought against Tsarism in Russia are now in prison under the Bolshevists. You have no right to talk about revolution where men are not allowed to express their views and newspapers are not allowed to oppose the Government. This holding up of a holy Russia gets on my nerves. I am a democratic Socialist and I believe in democracy and accept the rule of the majority. In our own party there are a number of people who always want to hold a candle to the Devil provided that the Devil wears a red hat. It does not matter what his tail is so long as he has got it up.
I would like to support this proposition so far as it means bringing people

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
5.40 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.



Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Albery, Irving James
Cooper, A. Duff
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cope, Major William
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harland, A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Blundell, F. N.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Burman, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Captain Walter E
Herbert,S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hills, Major John Waller


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hilton, Cecil


Chapman, Sir S.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Christie, J. A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Holland, Sir Arthur


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gee, Captain R.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

together. The best friends of Bolshevism are the people who are trying to boycott Russia. It leads the workers in Russia to think that Western European nations are all against them. If we extend the hand of friendship to Russia it might mean the breakdown of tyranny there. We would, as far as we are concerned, break down all barriers that divide people. I never hope to get to Russia, and if I did I do not expect I would get back.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no question of a credit to export the hon. Member.

Mr. THURTLE: Before the Question is put, I would like to ask if we are not going to have some kind of reply from the Treasury Bench to the very formidable case that has been made out.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A reply was given half an hour ago.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48;Noes, 133.

Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Pielou, D. P.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Preston, William
Templeton, W. P.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Radford, E. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lamb, J. Q.
Raine, W.
Tinne, J. A.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ramsden, E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Remer, J. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Loder, J. de V.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Salmon, Major I.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Lumley, L. R.
Samuel, A. M.(Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


MacIntyre, Ian
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandon, Lord
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sessoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wragg, Herbert


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smithers, Waldron
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Neville, R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Col. Hon.G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Captain Bowyer and Captain Margesson.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



Oakley, T.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. TAYLOR: Before this Clause is passed I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade what has become of the scheme of credit insurance which was announced to be under consideration by the Government some 12 months ago. There is a widespread feeling amongst exporters that such a scheme would be a very real help to bring about an expansion of our export trade, and I would like to ask whether the Department contemplates any alteration in the present administrative conditions regarding the granting of export credits and whether we may look forward to any changes of procedure in the not very distant future. The amount of business done under the export credit scheme is lamentably small when you bear in mind the real purpose of the Acts. Is it due to the fact that the conditions governing the credits are too complicated?
The machinery of the Department in deciding whether or not credit should be given in a particular case takes so long that the order has been completely lost before the Departmental machinery begins to operate. The criticism as to the amount of time that is taken up in deciding the granting of credits in a particular case is not the most important criticism that can be levelled at the present administration. The ordinary credit facilities that are available through the ordinary banking channels
can, speaking generally, be used much more expeditiously and economically than the export credit scheme.
I have heard authoritative criticism against the administration of the Acts on the ground that the opinion of the Department after investigation as to the standing of particular exporters and importers to foreign countries has been totally at variance with the facts. Twelve months ago this Department issued a questionnaire to trades engaged in the export trade seeking information as to the possibilities of a credit insurance scheme helping to rebuild our export trade. Has there been any substantial number of replies in which complaint has been made of the difficulties experienced by British exporters to certain countries where there are no British banking facilities?
The problem as I understand it is that in markets like the Balkans, more particularly Bulgaria, and in the Balkan States, there are no British banking facilities, and that a client to a British exporter, although the client may have good local credit, has in order to raise credit to go to a bank controlled by nationals other than British nationals, and that they put up every barrier against British trade by the device of charging exorbitant discount rates, and not only that, but that some of these banks are not above the suspicion of having used inside information respecting trade operations by conveying that information to the competitors of the British exporter who are amongst their own nationals.

Mr. REMER: Did the hon. Member mention Latavia? I am afraid it is not accurate with regard to that country.

Mr. TAYLOR: I have substantial grounds for the statement I am making. A reply which a large engineering firm sent to the questionaire stated that there is "no scarcity of business being given out in machinery the world over. Evidence from the various markets indicates that there is work in abundance being given out but the British manufacturers are not getting their share, the determining factor in the majority of cases not being primarily prices but ability to give the necessary credit." If that statement is true, I want to ask what the Department is doing in allowing this blockade of British trade by British banks to continue. The scheme of credit insurance we were told was being considered long ago?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I gladly give the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks. We did think that system of insurance ought to be investigated. I am glad to tell him that Colonel Peel's Committee made full enquiries. Colonel Peel, unfortunately, had to go to China on His Majesty's business, but I have persuaded the hon. Member for Ripon (Major Hills) to take the Chairmanship, and we have a strong Committee, consisting of:

Major J. W. Hills, J.P., M.P. (Chairman).
Colonel O. C. Armstrong, D.S.O., Chairman of Messrs. Greenwood and Batley, Ltd., ex-President of the Federation of British Industries.
J. Caulcutt, Esq., a general manager of Barclays Bank, Limited.
Sir William H. Clark, K.C.S.I., C.M.G., Comptroller-General of the Department of Overseas Trade.
A. C. Gladstone, Esq., Director of the Bank of England, partner in Messrs. Ogilvy, Gillanders and Company.
The Hon. Sir William Goschen, K.B.E., of Messrs. Goschens and Cunliffe. Chairman of the Sun Fire and Life Insurance Offices.
Joseph Powell, Esq., general manager of the Commercial Union Assurance Company.
2550
Eustace R. Pulbrook, Esq., Chairman of Lloyd's.
Gilbert C. Vyle, Esq., Deputy-President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
Colonel the Hon. F. V. Willey, C.M.G., C.B.E., M.V.O., President of the Federation of British Industries.
F. H. Nixon, Esq. {Secretary).
Arthur Mullins, Esq., C.B.E. (Assistant Secretary).
6.0 A.M
They have been examining this question exactly from the point of view set forth by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), and have done a good deal of work. I do not want to commit them to a date, but I expect I shall have a Report from them within a week or two. We shall, of course, carefully consider action upon the Report they make to us, and we hope it may meet the difficulties which he has explained. There is no doubt, as the hon. Member has said, that the great engineering firms in this country would be better equipped if they could insure themselves against bad debts in the export trade over a long period. I do not think the short-period trade is worth counting on, but the long period, or, as I ventured to call it at Leeds some time ago, a new train line on which to run a train for a long period of three years, is being carefully thought out, and in due course I shall consider what action can be taken upon the Report.
I cannot anticipate what the Report will contain, but hon. Members may rest assured that they have hammered out this thing thoroughly. They have had a large amount of evidence and have given a great deal of thought to it, and we hope that something satisfactory will emerge-from those investigations.

Sir F. WISE: Is that another Government credit scheme?

Mr. SAMUEL: No; but it may be possible to adapt an existing scheme.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow (Thursday).

GAS REGULATION ACT,1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Bideford Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 2nd February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Newark, which was presented on the 4th February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Solihull Gas Company, which was presented on the 9th February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Carlisle, which was presented on the 8th February and published, be approved.—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Six o'Clock a.m.